Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


The conservative’s primary nightmare scenario

posted at 9:57 pm on January 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

If Romney wins New Hampshire and then Huck beats him in Michigan.

Think about it. If McCain beats Mitt in NH, Michigan won’t matter terribly much to anyone except Romney. He’ll have to have it to remain viable. If he takes it, it’s good news for Fred: That’ll give Mitt, Huck, and Maverick one primary each headed into South Carolina with no strong momentum for anyone. If McCain surprises and takes it, he’ll have won two states in a row and will be surging hugely. If Huck takes it, McCain’s not badly hurt since his numbers in the state are in single digits and no one’s counting on him to win, the New Hampshire bounce notwithstanding. He’d go on to SC and beat the war drum to try to stop Huck there.

Mitt’s actually leading in Michigan, though, so another Huckabee surprise — on the Romney family’s front lawn, as it were — would be crushing, especially if it followed a Mitt win in New Hampshire. It’d be taken as proof that Romney can’t beat him where the two are competitive, even coming off a bounce. Having at that point defeated Romney twice, Huck would not only have huge momentum among social cons, he’d finally look serious enough to pick up a few key evangelical endorsements (Dobson’s maybe) and then go to South Carolina expecting to leverage the state’s evangelical base and finish off Mitt and Fred. It’s not far-fetched; he already leads there. If he pulls it off, it’s on to Florida with nothing in his way except Giuliani. He’s within seven points in that state as of this writing, and that doesn’t take into account his Iowa win.

Starting next week, the hard calculations will have to do with who should drop out and when. If McCain loses New Hampshire, he might follow Fred’s lead and try to linger on to South Carolina out of pride. Romney has the money to linger on until Big Tuesday on February 5. The more of them that stick around to split votes among themselves, the better positioned Huck is. For instance, if the nightmare scenario holds, you’ll have Mitt and Fred and possibly even McCain competing for social con votes in SC on the 19th. How do the 60% of anti-Huckabee conservatives break there? 15%, maybe, for Maverick’s stalwart war support, 15% for Fred’s true conservatism, and 15% for Mitt after having been inundated with so many Romney ads that they’ve given up resisting. The other 40% go to Huck. As such, you should think very carefully about whether Fred (or Mitt or McCain) staying in is a good move, whatever sentimental inclinations you may have to the contrary. The time to pick a consensus anti-Huck candidate could arrive as early as the evening of the 15th, when the Michigan results come in. Choose wisely.

Exit question: Unless Huck fails to win another primary before Florida, isn’t the other big winner last night Giuliani? There’s going to be a SECOND LOOK AT RUDY! in a major way if Huckamania rolls into late January. Expect to see lots of terror talk from him over the next three weeks to try to unite the anti-Huck conservatives under the banner of keeping a guy who wants to apply the golden rule to Iran far, far away from the levers of power.

Update: The counterargument, I guess, is that conservatives would much rather take their chances in South Carolina with a well funded Romney than with McCain, even if Mitt were to suffer two meaningful losses to Huckabee before then. I think the media afterglow for McCain following a win in New Hampshire would be worth more than the ads Mitt would have to run to undo media gloom following a loss to Huck in Michigan, but I can see it the other way. The long and short of it is that if Huck wins South Carolina then Rudy becomes the conservatives’ last stand no matter who wins New Hampshire.

Update: Barring the sort of three-way split among the early primaries that I described in above, the only way for Fred to win SC is in a two-man race, where the various parts of the “true conservative” base might coalesce behind him. Otherwise they get split off — if Huck’s still in it, some of the evangelicals go to Huck and if Mitt’s still in it some of the social cons are wooed by his advertising. There’s no scenario at this point in which a two-man race happens, though. The only guy who could have knocked everyone else out before SC was Romney, and even if he had, do you really think Fred was going to beat Moneybags coming off two or three primary wins?

Update: Reader Land Johnston notes that McCain may not be nearly as far behind in Michigan as thought. In one (sketchy) poll from December, with Democrats and independents included, he actually led. I think the fact remains, though, that he could walk away from a Michigan loss much more easily than Romney could, not only because of the family pedigree there but because Romney’s led in the state for so long that the only possible narrative coming out would be crash and burn. McCain’s narrative would be late surge that fell just a little short.

Update: Kerry Howley says Huckabee’s doomed on February 5 come what may. Not enough money or organization to compete with the big boys — which was supposedly also why Mitt was going to win Iowa, as I recall. Under the nightmare scenario, McCain and Fred will be long gone by Big Tuesday and Romney will have been hobbled by a string of primary losses (unless he surprises in Florida). Is Rudy’s ground game really that good? And are there really so few evangelicals in the Big Tuesday states to matter?

If Huckabee takes Iowa and does well in South Carolina, a scenario that seems increasingly plausible, he’ll have to wage a campaign built on something more than personal charisma and O’Reilly appearances. The other candidates have anticipated this moment, building organizations in states that will matter beyond January. Huckabee has not. He’ll be a little-known candidate with a shoestring budget relying on dated grassroots political strategy as an air war rages between better-funded candidates.

It’s a recipe for failure.


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

Rudy? And they called Fred lazy.

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:02 PM

At this stage I am starting to up the Southpark estimate of 25% tard.
Not one of the Dems is qualified to be POTUS.
In the GOP, Mitt,McC,Rudy,even Fred are at least qualified on a management level,barring postitions.
Obama and Huck? Give me a break, charlatans both, they “change” nothing,Nada.Zip.Bupkiss…..

bbz123 on January 4, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Rudy? And they called Fred lazy.

Maybe that’s what Fred should do — go straight to Florida and position himself as the Only Man Who Can Save the GOP from Huckamania.

Besides Rudy, that is.

Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:03 PM

There are a couple other factors that are about to change as well. John and Huck have ostensibly teamed up on Mitt. Rudy also I think was hoping Huck rise up to split the social cons with Mitt, though it has happened beyond his expectations I think.

All of that to say, Huck has surprised everyone. He is going to have to take the scrutiny of a front-runner, and I personally think that Rudy is still in a strong position due to the altered primary schedule.

If Huck wins the nomination, it will be because there is more power among evangelicals than anyone accounted for.

Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Rudy? And they called Fred lazy.
Maybe that’s what Fred should do — go straight to Florida and position himself as the Only Man Who Can Save the GOP from Huckamania.

It seems that’s the path he’s chosen to take today. I guess we’ll see.

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:07 PM

The time to pick a consensus anti-Huck candidate could arrive as early as the evening of the 15th, when the Michigan results come in. Choose wisely.

Already done.

FRED!

FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 10:07 PM

So what we are saying here is, we all need to support whomever has the best chance of beating Huck, everyone else should get the hell out of the way. Forget who you believe in and who you identify with.

Sounds like the old argument I heard about “we have to support the only candidate that can beat Hillary”

To hell with what you believe in people……It’s all about who can win!!!!!!!

conservnut on January 4, 2008 at 10:07 PM

If Huck wins the nomination, it will be because there is more power among evangelicals than anyone accounted for.

If Huck wins the nomination, it will be because there is more stupidity among evangelicals than anyone (including this evangelical) accounted for.

Laura on January 4, 2008 at 10:07 PM

:P

FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 10:07 PM

No second or third or fourth look at Rudy.

Rudy & Huck are both RINO’s. Forty years ago they would have both been Democrats. (In fact Rudy was one and when Huck ran for governor, people were surprised he didn’t run as a Democrat). There used to be Dems who were hawks and there used to be Dems who were pro-life.

INC on January 4, 2008 at 10:09 PM

One thing that strikes me here… Mitt, Huck and McCain are gouging each other’s eyes out at every turn. They leave Fred untouched.

EXIT QUESTION: Is it because they fear him, or they think he is inconsequential?

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Besides Rudy, that is.

Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Rudy is one of the chief causes of Huckamania.

FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 10:09 PM

So what are you saying? Rally behind Romney now? This whole convoluted post is based on a highly unlikely assumption. If Romney wins NH, he’ll trounce Huck in MI.

Dudley Smith on January 4, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Rudy is one of the chief causes of Huckamania.

FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 10:09 PM

I agree. The threat of Rudy as a candidate was, IMO, a galvanizing factor amongst the Huckabees.

I’m an evangelical soc con who’s also a fiscal con & hawk. I’m for Fred.

INC on January 4, 2008 at 10:11 PM

If Romney wins NH, he’ll trounce Huck in MI.

Not so fast. I understand what you’re saying, but it just isn’t quite playing in my mind that way.

Each of these contests is going to be very interesting. I think the fallout of one affecting another at this point is very premature.

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:11 PM

If Huck wins the nomination, it will be because there is more stupidity among evangelicals than anyone (including this evangelical) accounted for.

I can’t call them stupid because I don’t know their knowledge or their motive, but they have muscle to flex clearly. How much, especially outside of Iowa, remains to be seen.

Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 10:11 PM

How do the 60% of anti-Huckabee conservatives break there? 15%, maybe, for Maverick’s stalwart war support, 15% for Fred’s true conservatism, and 15% for Mitt after having been inundated with so many Romney ads that they’ve given up resisting. The other 40% go to Huck.

So Rudy gets no votes before FL?

tommylotto on January 4, 2008 at 10:12 PM

It’s like Survivor – the losing parties band together to take down the top dog. Eventually, they turn on each other. Who will be kicked off the island next? None can truly be trusted for anything other than political gain. Sickening, really. And this is what we call our process for a democratic election. You know, at the end of the day, I simply go to the voting booth knowing I’ll choose the Republican – whomever it is.

thedecider on January 4, 2008 at 10:12 PM

If Huck wins the nomination, it will be because there is more power among evangelicals than anyone accounted for of the MSM.

They’re running the show and calling the shots. The talking heads know what’s best for Amerika.

fogw on January 4, 2008 at 10:13 PM

I can’t call them stupid because I don’t know their knowledge or their motive

It’s anecdotal, obviously, but I’m talking about the circles I run in. Ignorant is really a better word choice, but in an election season, I call that stupid.

Laura on January 4, 2008 at 10:14 PM

One thing that strikes me here… Mitt, Huck and McCain are gouging each other’s eyes out at every turn. They leave Fred untouched.

EXIT QUESTION: Is it because they fear him, or they think he is inconsequential?

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:09 PM

what could they possibly attack him on?
His positions are rock solid and very conservative.

TheSitRep on January 4, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, the Iranian mullahs, al Qaeda – all salivating at the thought of dealing with that ignorant dufus from Arkansas.

Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 10:14 PM

I am reading Allahpundit talk about the possible primary scenarios like an ESPN radio update on the MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL playoffs and all I can think about?

Bitchslap In Beantown.

Ah, those were the days kufir…..

That’s right AP- Fred=Crimson Jihad in ‘04?

Tman on January 4, 2008 at 10:15 PM

what could they possibly attack him on?
His positions are rock solid and very conservative.

TheSitRep on January 4, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Exactly. You are correct, I think.

We be patient, grasshopper. We be VERY patient.

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:15 PM

No second or third or fourth look at Rudy.

Rudy & Huck are both RINO’s. Forty years ago they would have both been Democrats. (In fact Rudy was one and when Huck ran for governor, people were surprised he didn’t run as a Democrat). There used to be Dems who were hawks and there used to be Dems who were pro-life.

INC on January 4, 2008 at 10:09 PM

40 years ago most current Republicans would have been Democrats including your sainted Ronald Reagan who come to think of it was once a Democrat himself.

Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 10:17 PM

We be patient, grasshopper. We be VERY patient.

Barring the sort of three-way split among the early primaries that I described in the post, the only way for Fred to win SC is if it’s a two-man race. Otherwise parts of his “true conservative” constituency get split off — if Huck’s still in it, some of the evangelicals go to Huck and if Mitt’s still in it some of the social cons are wooed by his advertising. There’s really no scenario in which a two-man race happens, though. The only guy who could have knocked everyone else out before SC was Romney, and that’s not going to happen now. And even if it had, do you really think Fred was going to knock off Moneybags with two or three primary wins under his belt?

Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:19 PM

The only real “nightmare scenario” I have is an Obama or Clinton winning the presidency in 2008!!! I would take any of the current Republican candidates over any Democrat. At some point we conservatives need to unite behind a single guy; whether that guy is Fred, Mitt, John, Mike, or even Ron, makes little difference, in the larger sense, as opposed to a possible Hillary or Barek!!! That would be a nightmare!!!

IntheNet on January 4, 2008 at 10:19 PM

I don’t think you’ll have to worry about Mike Huckabee ever becoming president. Mike Huckabee incites . A great amount of voter apathy within me.

TheSitRep on January 4, 2008 at 10:20 PM

The conservative’s primary nightmare scenario

“The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, whether by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable.”

— Ulysses S. Grant – “Personal Memoirs” (1885)

Findings commission rests.

Speakup on January 4, 2008 at 10:20 PM

Hopefully, Huck’s record is going to start getting more scrutiny and publicity. Maybe voters will wake up about what a liberal RINO this guy really is. He is no conservative.

katieanne on January 4, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Wyoming caucuses tomorrow morning.

bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Hopefully, Huck’s record is going to start getting more scrutiny and publicity. Maybe voters will wake up about what a liberal RINO this guy really is. He is no conservative.

katieanne on January 4, 2008 at 10:21 PM

I’m not counting on it. There are two factors in play here. 1) The Media. It has no interest in exposing his stupidity, because he’s the Democrats’ best bet. 2) I’m not terribly sure too many of his supporters would care.

amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:24 PM

Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:19 PM

I acually think you are right, but I don’t like it and reserve the right to gripe about it until I accept it.

conservnut on January 4, 2008 at 10:25 PM

If Huck wins the nomination, it will be because there is more power among evangelicals than anyone accounted for.

Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Can I add a word here?

How about “power among uninformed evangelicals”? I don’t think a wise, level headed evangelical would ever consider voting for Huck.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:25 PM

what could they possibly attack him on?
His positions are rock solid and very conservative.

TheSitRep on January 4, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Exactly! Just as the MSM likes to promote the body counts in the war when they are high and ignores the count when it is low, they like to point out the negatives and the mistakes in this campaign. If there are none, they just make them up.

In Fred’s case they don’t have any fuel for the fire. It drives them crazy. They can’t make money by actually concentrating on the issues and what each candidates position is. They need entertainment for ratings because that’s what brings in the big bucks. It’s a calculated business decision based purely on profits.

I bet Politco has gotten more web hits and publicity in the past week than in the past two months because of their slanted stories on Fred.

Controversy=hits=money

Nelsa on January 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM

How about “power among uninformed evangelicals”? I don’t think a wise, level headed evangelical would ever consider voting for Huck.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Tactfully put. When I get over being furious about this, I’ll modify my tone.

Laura on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 PM

We are staring right down the barrel of the mother of all cases of buyer’s remorse.

Chief Justice John Roberts: President-elect (insert Dem nominee here), raise your right hand and repeat after me …

thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 PM

FRED!

FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 10:07 PM

So if Fred loses Wyoming, NH, and Michigan, he is somehow the viable anti-Huck candidate? Mind explaining how that logically? works

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 PM

Barring the sort of three-way split among the early primaries that I described in the post, the only way for Fred to win SC is if it’s a two-man race. Otherwise parts of his “true conservative” constituency get split off — if Huck’s still in it, some of the evangelicals go to Huck and if Mitt’s still in it some of the social cons are wooed by his advertising. There’s really no scenario in which a two-man race happens, though. The only guy who could have knocked everyone else out before SC was Romney, and that’s not going to happen now. And even if it had, do you really think Fred was going to knock off Moneybags with two or three primary wins under his belt?

Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:19 PM

AP, there are so many variables here. It’s unlike any other year I can recall. All of us are guessing, no doubt about it. It is simply fascinating and sickening at the same time.

You and I both know Huck can’t sustain his little Huckaboom forever. Mitt is flailing, but still has a chance. McCain, for all his good points, just can’t do it. It’s his bad points that always kill him. It just ain’t gonna happen.

New Hampshire is interesting, Wyoming less so, but the Cowboy State could be a nice pick up for Fred or The Hair. There’s nothing like a little bit of positive press leading up to SC, no? Who woulda thunk Wyoming might give someone a boost?

Incidentally, while we were typing today, Fred just raised $100K since right before lunchtime.

Fred! is inevitable, I think.

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:30 PM

How about “power among uninformed evangelicals”? I don’t think a wise, level headed evangelical would ever consider voting for Huck.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:25 PM

And how many of those are out there? I consider myself one but I swear, some of the evangelicals I know are very uninformed about anything other than a single issue or two. And those single issues determine who they support.

conservnut on January 4, 2008 at 10:30 PM

I am going to wake up in a cold, sweaty, screaming fit from dreams of AP’s nightmare scenario for at least the next few weeks. Thanks, bud.

That was a keen analysis, though. Well done.

joewm315 on January 4, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Rudy is one of the chief causes of Huckamania.

FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 10:09 PM

If that is the case, then the entire rep field is the chief cause.

The chief cause of Huckamania is his status as the Jesus candidate.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:31 PM

God this is a joke.

Hucks strength of schedule is weak. He has already beat him twice on his home turf, each has one win. With two wins in hand who will make it the distance. Does this sound familiar??

Sounds like the friggin BCS!! Hows that working out as far as choosing a champion?

broker1 on January 4, 2008 at 10:31 PM

The real problem with Huck is that he has not been in the limelight as a front runner long enough for the real conservatives to gang up on him en masse, for an extended period of time.
The longer he stays in the primaries the more exposure his past will be subjected to.

As such, if in the long shot he gets nominated – not going to happen – but if in fact there are so many idiotic, stupid, cultist evangelicals that cannot see the truth and he gets the nomination, there will be a counter charge the likes you have never seen.
James Dobson will rue the day he ever uttered the name Huckabee.

In such case there will absolutely be a third/off party candidate – even if it means creating a new one – that will run a strong campaign on real conservative principles, immigration being a big one.
Then with Huckabee fully exposed for the fraud he is, the outlier party candidate will win the day.

This has been in the making for a while with our party abandoning our principles.

This is the perfect time for the successful execution of such an event with the advent of the new media now ruling the day and so many candidates in the running that ultimately will lose by a narrow margin.

MARK. MY. WORDS.

This election party has barely started, and is not over until the fat lady sings.

Mcguyver on January 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM

The race hinges on whether Rudy can hold onto his lead in FL. To do that he does not need to win any prior state, but he must be respectable and no other candidate can capture momentum by winning more than two states. FL is winner take all and even if that is the first state Rudy takes, he will be the delegate leader going into 2/5 and on 2/6 he will be way ahead of any of the competition.

The developments of last night shape up well for Rudy. Huck stopped Mitt from getting Iowa. Fred blunted McCain’s surge. McCain or Mitt will take NH and Huck or Fred will take SC. Even if Mitt wins Michigan there will still be no established frontrunner with momentum leading into FL. So long as Rudy doesn’t finnish behind Paul again, he wins FL and rolls on Super Duper Ultra Mega Tuesday.

tommylotto on January 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Can I add a word here?

How about “power among uninformed evangelicals”? I don’t think a wise, level headed evangelical would ever consider voting for Huck.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Always.

Let me recast it for you though. Consider affiliation. Are you a Conservative first or a Republican first? Now think of Huck supporters. I’d wager they are in ascending order: Republican, Conservative, Christian or Independent, Christian. Etc. I know it means Identity politics to the outside, but on the inside it would be value politics. Not the value of policy, but the value of identity.

Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM

James Dobson will rue the day he ever uttered the name Huckabee.

From your mouth to God’s ear.

Laura on January 4, 2008 at 10:33 PM

For those Fred fans who didn’t get the Crimson Jihad/Fred reference-

““We have a chance tomor-
row to shock the world,” first
baseman Kevin Millar said af-
ter Tuesday night’s heart-
pounding 4-2 victory at Yankee
Stadium, evening this 2004 ALCS at three games apiece.

The Fred/Bosox comparison has potential…..

Tman on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

One thing that strikes me here… Mitt, Huck and McCain are gouging each other’s eyes out at every turn. They leave Fred untouched.

EXIT QUESTION: Is it because they fear him, or they think he is inconsequential?

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Bud, you’re gonna hate this but I have to say it…..

They don’t attack him because you don’t try to fix something that’s already fixed.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

I’d wager they are in ascending order: Republican, Conservative, Christian or Independent, Christian.

I’m Christian first, then political conservative. But I don’t mistake Huckabee for Jesus Christ.

Laura on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

James Dobson will rue the day he ever uttered the name Huckabee.

Speaking as a Christian, Dobson can kiss my a*s. He has kissed it for the better part of my adult life, but just doesn’t know it yet.

And therein lies the problem with Dobson.

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

You know, allahpundit, we’re at a crossroads, with the future of the western world in the balance. Instead of stepping up to the plate and supporting Fred Thompson, you and Michelle and Bryan have gone “eek!” over firemen’s hats and other nonsense. You could have made a difference. Instead, you decided to sit it out…

You have made yourselves irrelevant.

The sad thing is that Fred is sooo your kind of candidate. But you valued snark above all else. So I say, “Screw you!”

grits on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

So if Fred loses Wyoming, NH, and Michigan, he is somehow the viable anti-Huck candidate? Mind explaining how that logically? works

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 PM

Sure… by whatever means, which I will not even pretend to have the extra-sensory-perceptive abilities to predict, Fred wins what he needs to stay in the race and eventually win the nomination. Short of that, somebody other than Fred wins the nomination and you guys are screwed.

Seriously though, even if I’m but a small minority here, my opinion of Huck isn’t much worse than my opinions of several of the other Republican nominees.

FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Bud, you’re gonna hate this but I have to say it…..

They don’t attack him because you don’t try to fix something that’s already fixed.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

I’m gonna have to ask you to show your work here to get any credit for that answer.

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:38 PM

You have made yourselves irrelevant.

Yep, it’s Hot Air’s fault. You solved the puzzle, grits.

Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:39 PM

This election party has barely started, and is not over until the fat lady sings.

Mcguyver on January 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Look, I’m just as upset as you are about this, but there’s no reason to drag Rosie into this.

amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:39 PM

The sad thing is that Fred is sooo your kind of candidate. But you valued snark above all else. So I say, “Screw you!”

grits on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

This assertion certainly has some merit.

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:39 PM

the only man who could save the GOP from Huckmania…besides Rudy

I don’t want Rudy to save us from Huck–he’s worse: personal scandals, professional scandals, weak record on immigration, pro-abortion, anti-gun, etc. And the current mayor of NY has reduced crime since Rudy.

jgapinoy on January 4, 2008 at 10:41 PM

You know, allahpundit, we’re at a crossroads, with the future of the western world in the balance. Instead of stepping up to the plate and supporting Fred Thompson, you and Michelle and Bryan have gone “eek!” over firemen’s hats and other nonsense. You could have made a difference. Instead, you decided to sit it out…

You have made yourselves irrelevant.

The sad thing is that Fred is sooo your kind of candidate. But you valued snark above all else. So I say, “Screw you!”

grits on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Yes, Allah. I too blame you and Hot Air personally for not getting Fred a higher level of support. Had you not posted those political articles and commentary on this blog, you could’ve made a difference in the outcome.

And here I was thinking you’ve criticized all of the other candidates as well, having said you’re voting for Fred.

amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:42 PM

Tactfully put. When I get over being furious about this, I’ll modify my tone.

Those corn brains have only three (3) things in mind:

1. Smell of pigs which comes through the nose.

2. Pictures of corn which come through the eyes.

3. A sense of the immorality of abortion which comes through the spirit. (The only good thing)

There is a question whether any other part of their brain is working, such as common sense, reasoning, logic, etc.

See-Dubya, I think I have outdone you in biased judgement now.

Sorry.

I feel better now.

Mcguyver on January 4, 2008 at 10:43 PM

I thought so. Thank you.

grits on January 4, 2008 at 10:43 PM

jgapinoy on January 4, 2008 at 10:41 PM

Rudy is weak on immigration??? You call putting illegal immigrants into concentration camps weak. Not even Tancredo has done that!

tommylotto on January 4, 2008 at 10:44 PM

I don’t want Rudy to save us from Huck–he’s worse: personal scandals, professional scandals, weak record on immigration, pro-abortion, anti-gun, etc.

jgapinoy on January 4, 2008 at 10:41 PM

Huck’s a nanny stater, tax-raiser, national smoking ban supporting, deficit increasing, weak on immigration and crime, pathetic knowledge on foreign policy, golden rule for Iran supporting, completely oblivious, as Fred says, Pro-Life Liberal.

amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:45 PM

You know, allahpundit, we’re at a crossroads, with the future of the western world in the balance. Instead of stepping up to the plate and supporting Fred Thompson, you and Michelle and Bryan have gone “eek!” over firemen’s hats and other nonsense. You could have made a difference. Instead, you decided to sit it out…

You have made yourselves irrelevant.

The sad thing is that Fred is sooo your kind of candidate. But you valued snark above all else. So I say, “Screw you!”

grits on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Way to go, Allahpundit… geez.

krabbas on January 4, 2008 at 10:46 PM

“The Nightmare Shootout in the New Hampshire Corral”
=Starring=
Mitt Romney as the Pastor
Fred Thompson as the Gunslinger
Rudy Guillani as the Deputy
John McCain as the Sheriff
Mike Huckabee as the Barkeep
Ron Paul as the Texas Cowboy

Watch the quaint citizens of New Hampshire caucus amid a western-type shootout that leaves everyone wounded; nobody gets out of the corral alive… High Noon eastern style… Coming to a state political caucus near you. Rated X for violence, political backstabbing, and boring grandstanding.

IntheNet on January 4, 2008 at 10:48 PM

grits on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Leading into Iowa he bombarded us with Fred post after Fred post that linked to his lame Red Pickup Truck fund raising endeavor. He has been providing a home for terminal Fredheads.

tommylotto on January 4, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Laura on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

You are commenting on a political blog. You are more actively politically then the average person. ie anecdotal evidence means little here.

Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 10:49 PM

I actually threw up a little bit in my mouth when I read this nightmare scenario…

If it comes down to Obama and Huck in the general, I will have to consider Obama. Only because both presidencies would have a good chance of being train wrecks, and if I have to vote for a disaster, I’d rather it have the Democrat brand on it.

Eh, who am I kidding? I could never vote Democratic, I don’t think.

krabbas on January 4, 2008 at 10:50 PM

Mcguyver on January 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM

AND until Iowa, no one really knew if he was for real. Now that is kinda is, the full weight of real conservative principles will come to bear.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:50 PM

If, if, if, if, if, if……..

A total of 16 “if” scenarios in Allah’s piece.

Kinda iffy doncha think, Allah?

Kokonut on January 4, 2008 at 10:51 PM

40 years ago most current Republicans would have been Democrats including your sainted Ronald Reagan who come to think of it was once a Democrat himself.

Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 10:17 PM

I’ve no idea why you’re snarking at me or why you even brought up Reagan, but you need to know that 40 years ago Reagan had already been a Republican for over five years.

INC on January 4, 2008 at 10:52 PM

LOL!

Mcguyver on January 4, 2008 at 10:52 PM

I’m Christian first, then political conservative. But I don’t mistake Huckabee for Jesus Christ.

Laura on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM

But you aren’t a Huck supporter. I think that is his point. And I agree. The Huck supporters are dopey.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:53 PM

Leading into Iowa he bombarded us with Fred post after Fred post that linked to his lame Red Pickup Truck fund raising endeavor. He has been providing a home for terminal Fredheads.

tommylotto on January 4, 2008 at 10:49 PM

You can’t even say sh*t when you’re mouth is full of it.

And you’re the only one that doesn’t know it.

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:55 PM

I’m gonna have to ask you to show your work here to get any credit for that answer.

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Fred’s campaign is already broke and Fred is doing that all by himself. Why should Rudy, Mitt, or anyone else spend the time to do something Fred has already done?

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:55 PM

But you aren’t a Huck supporter. I think that is his point. And I agree. The Huck supporters are dopey.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 10:53 PM

A lot like Paulites, but unfortunatly more numerous.

conservnut on January 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Huck’s a nanny stater, tax-raiser, national smoking ban supporting, deficit increasing, weak on immigration and crime, pathetic knowledge on foreign policy, golden rule for Iran supporting, completely oblivious, as Fred says, Pro-Life Liberal.

amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:45 PM

So you’re saying that Huck is just as bad as Rudy, but in a different way?

FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM

In such case there will absolutely be a third/off party candidate

I said this earlier trying to be clever but I’ve been thinking about it all night. Huckster and barry are the rep/dem candidates. Two light weights. Bloomburg gets in, maybe ron paul, nader or someone else as a fourth party. Apathetic or disillusioned voter turnout, total drops to 80 million or so. 4 candidates split 80 million votes. There are 20 million loyal Rush listeners out there. If it isn’t Rush himself, he could choose a fifth write-in candidate and his listeners alone could sway the election. It may not be such a crazy scenario except whats scary is the fifth guy could be a psycho like gore.

peacenprosperity on January 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:55 PM

I’ve counted at least 2 or 3 threads were Allah has directly linked to Fred’s donation site.

amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:57 PM

Fred’s campaign is already broke…

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at

Dig it, dude! $103K since lunch time!

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Yep, it’s Hot Air’s fault. You solved the puzzle, grits.

Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Since you’re taking all the blame you might as well take all the credit too. You know it was all that positive press HA gave Fred all last summer that elevated him to God status before he was even a candidate. The only question that remains is: What psychosis inflicted you to make Fred a king, just to destroy him 6 months later? What’s with you? Are you deranged or something?!

/s/

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 11:00 PM

Tactfully put. When I get over being furious about this, I’ll modify my tone.

Laura on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 PM

Likewise, but those of you who are lamenting a Huckabee Presidency are underestimating the conservatives and other Republicans who oppose Huck.

Hear me now, and believe me later — I will vote for a DemonRat before I put this lying douche in the Oval Office with the mandate of a few million ignorant country evangelicals. God bless them for their faith and the way that faith informs their daily lives, but electing a flim-flam man President because he claims that God has chosen him is just stupid.

I’ll side with the people who hate Christians to keep this jerk out of the office. (Unless it’s Obama. Please, Lord, don’t let it be Obama.)

Jaibones on January 4, 2008 at 11:00 PM

AP, supra:

How do the 60% of anti-Huckabee conservatives break there? 15%, maybe, for Maverick’s stalwart war support, 15% for Fred’s true conservatism, and 15% for Mitt after having been inundated with so many Romney ads that they’ve given up resisting. The other 40% go to Huck.

How do you figure that 40% of the anti-Huck vote goes to Huck? That’s where you lost me.

The relevant questions are: 1) How big is the anti-Huck vote, and 2) What is the nature of it? I don’t know the answer to the first question. But if the answer to the second is found in the comments here, then the anti-Huck vote is strident, and it breaks to anybody but Huckabee.

Depending on who’s still standing when the vote gets to me, I go from Giuliani to Thompson to Romney to McCain to Obama. But in no event do I vote for Mike Huckabee. If we must have a liberal in the White House when the recession hits, better to have a Democratic one so as to insulate the GOP from blame.

paul006 on January 4, 2008 at 11:01 PM

I’ve counted at least 2 or 3 threads were Allah has directly linked to Fred’s donation site.

amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:57 PM

I’ll concede that. But do NOT make me exert the energy to do any snark, slam and Politico research. Just don’t go there. We both have way more important things to do in life than this.

— backs away slowly —

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 11:02 PM

I don’t think you guys appreciate how well Huckabee is doing nationally even with little money and resources. Huckabee is at 17% only behind Rudy (who has been leading the entire time) by 3% points.

Here’s what makes Huckabee attractive to the REPUBLICANS

1. Pro-LIFE
2. PRO GUN

OK, take those two positions and compare them with the rest of the field. That’s why he’s popular.

Another reason he’s popular is because they are all bad. The GOP’s only hope is really if Hillary gets the nomination because they need the vote against to win. None of the candidates are worth voting for. Rudy is phoning it in. If Rudy gets the nomination it will show the R party for the joke it is.

Huckabee is popular nationally, not just in Iowa, not just among the ‘evangelicals’. I guarantee you no pro-life Republican and no pro-gun Republican will ever vote for Rudy (evangelical or Catholic).

ThackerAgency on January 4, 2008 at 11:03 PM

A lot like Paulites, but unfortunatly more numerous.

conservnut on January 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM

And worse yet, they think they have absolute moral authority. That’s what makes them such arrogant jagoffs.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 11:05 PM

It may not be such a crazy scenario except whats scary is the fifth guy could be a psycho like gore.
peacenprosperity on January 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Or Alan Keyes, Mitt Romney, Micheal Savage, or name any number of potential candidates that could pull off 20 million votes in a strong conservative principled outlier campaign.

Bloomberg is already in, as soon as, or just before Obama gets nominated. So the liberal votes are already weakened as of now.

Ron Paul will definitely be in as the libertarian, weakening the liberal votes even more.

Mcguyver on January 4, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Look, I’ve got no hard-core analysis to offer. As one poster said earlier, this is like trying to second- and third-guess the BCS. There are so many ifs, thens, and whens presented here that the whole this gets to be more convoluted than some deconstructionist’s essay on agricultural economies of scale and Willa Cather’s novels.

Here’s what I think, and what I’ve always thought. And I think it’s a better analogy.

In the city where I live, we have a rather famous horse race every May. And for weeks beforehand, all the alleged experts try to pick the winner. These experts are usually wrong. Rarely does the favored horse cross the finish line. Instead, there’s always one with pretty good odds who sometimes hangs back to maybe fourth or fifth place after the race starts. This horse usually makes his (or her) move right after the far turn when the field heads into the home stretch. By then, all the front runners start to fall behind, exhausted. The horse finds the hole and charges through it. Then to the finish line.

As I’ve always said here: FIGHT the war on terror, WIN the war on terror, CUT our enemies off at the knees, HUMILIATE them in the eyes of all civilization to where they will NEVER challenge it again. DEFEAT them soundly and utterly.

Two men in this race have the stones to pull that off at the cost of all other issues. My support is behind one of them:

Rudy.

All the other issues are important, to be sure. But if we lose the war, they won’t matter at all.

If your favorite candidate doesn’t get the nomination and you choose to stay home on Election Day, you do so at your and your nation’s peril.

Gottafang on January 4, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Dig it, dude! $103K since lunch time!

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 10:58 PM

I meant broken, but now that you mention money, he’s broke too.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Let me conclude, no one likes anyone so we may as well give up and give it to the Dems. I have never read more defeatist attitude in my life!

KBird on January 4, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Allah… here is an alternative scenario…

McCain beats Romney in New Hampshire…by an even wider margin than the whollop Huckabee put on him just days ago. Adding insult to injury, Huckabee comes in a close third behind Romney behind a Hawkeye Surge. Many have said, with his win in Iowa, Huckabee will really be under a microscope. Folks, he has already been under an electron-microscope by the elite-cons and hasn’t blinked…if anything, he has gone up in the polls. He has proven he can stand up to the heat.

A week later, having lost the first two primaries, Romney takes negative campaigning to a new level to go after both Huck and McCain…and it is rejected by the Michigan electorate and he finishes third and losses his third state. RCP has each of the three at some point winning Michigan, so it’s not out of the realm of possibilities. Exit stage left, Mitt Romney. Huckabee: Iowa and Michigan, McCain: New Hampshire.

Mitt’s actually leading in Michigan, though, so another Huckabee surprise — on the Romney family’s front lawn, as it were — would be crushing, especially if it followed a Mitt win in New Hampshire.

The trail then heads to South Carolina and fertile ground for Huckabee. Last Summer, several county straw polls went the way of the Arkansas Governor and “identity politics” plays right into his hands. Fred Thompson has made South Carolina his line in the sand and finishes a strong second to Huckabee, grabbing enough steam to keep going.

Florida, the first key state in the Giuliani strategy, gets the spotlight. Huckabee has come off two impressive victories and knocked out Romney and McCain has re-energized his campaign with a win in New Hampshire. Tough competition for America’s Mayor, and don’t forget about Fred Thompson. All four finish within a few points of each other and … now we have now clear front runner.

Many have said, with his win in Iowa, Huckabee will really be under a microscope. Folks, he has already been under an electron-microscope by the elite-cons and hasn’t blinked…if anything, he has gone up in the polls. He has proven he can stand up to the heat.

If Huckabee can take Iowa, Michigan, and South Carolina…how much of the establishment will come around and “eat crow” on their way to giving him a second chance as the clear front runner? With no clear winner, what will happen with Super Tuesday? The grassroots conservatives have shown that they can rally around Huckabee he gets even more endorsements.

he’d finally look serious enough to pick up a few key evangelical endorsements (Dobson’s maybe)

Some may give Thompson a second look now and the moderates have McCain and Rudy to split the vote.

All of this is not out of the realm of possibilities!

Dhornertx on January 4, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Rudy.

All the other issues are important, to be sure. But if we lose the war, they won’t matter at all.

If your favorite candidate doesn’t get the nomination and you choose to stay home on Election Day, you do so at your and your nation’s peril.

Gottafang on January 4, 2008 at 11:08 PM

You are behind a guy who just finished 6th behind Ron Paul in a contest he was leading in the middle of last year. This guy has all the positions of your average Democrat and his only claim to fame is that he was mayor of the city that was the victim of the greatest terrorist incident in the history of this country.

I’ll never support Rudy. If he doesn’t run against Hillary, he doesn’t stand a chance, and he doesn’t stand much of a chance against Hillary. He won’t be able to come from behind. He’s been in front the whole time. . . and now you characterize him as ‘coming from behind’. Rudy is that horse that all the ‘experts’ picked. He stumbled out of the gate and can’t come from behind. He’ll lose Florida because the ads will all say that this guy can’t even finish respectably in the early states for one reason or another. It will always be someone else’s fault, but the fact is Rudy is an awful candidate and would make a more corrupt president than any we have had.

ThackerAgency on January 4, 2008 at 11:14 PM

I meant broken, but now that you mention money, he’s broke too.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Unfortunately, that’s not what you said. Y’see, us conservatives actually say what we mean. You’ll catch on, someday.

But since you bring it up, that level of fund-raising would put Fred at, oh… MY GOD! Millions of dollars? More than Huck. More than McVain. A lot more.

Now then… your trivia questions of the night:

1) New Hampshire has how many delegates?

2) Wyoming has how many delegates?

First person to answer correctly wins an autographed stuffed doll of csdeven!

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 11:15 PM

I’ve no idea why you’re snarking at me or why you even brought up Reagan, but you need to know that 40 years ago Reagan had already been a Republican for over five years.

INC on January 4, 2008 at 10:52 PM

Yes I know Reagan was 40 years ago a Republican. I was making the point that a lot of todays Republicans were originally Democrats or voted for Democrats such as JFK, LBJ, Hubert Humphrey.

Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 11:16 PM

Yep, it’s Hot Air’s fault. You solved the puzzle, grits.

Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 10:39 PM

See, the conservative moment is like a foot, and Hot Air is our big toe. Heh.

ReubenJCogburn on January 4, 2008 at 11:17 PM

That was painful enough to have merit to it.

Anwyn on January 4, 2008 at 11:19 PM

AP’s rundown, I mean.

Also “From your mouth to God’s ear.”

Anwyn on January 4, 2008 at 11:19 PM

The media is putting everything into making post-9/11 Islamic terrorism a non-issue. What was the big news today?

The economy. Economy. Economy. Economy. Everything sucks. Recession is inevitable and it’s all because of Bush.

The war in Iraq is on the upturn, the media is going to make 95% employment, a 13K+ Dow, strong retail sales, and low marginal tax rates a “recession.”

With that in mind, who could the media select to save us from that? It ain’t rich guy Mitt.

ScottMcC on January 4, 2008 at 11:20 PM

Here’s what makes Huckabee attractive to the REPUBLICANS

1. Pro-LIFE
2. PRO GUN

OK, take those two positions and compare them with the rest of the field. That’s why he’s popular.

ThackerAgency

Really then how come after all these years of Ricahrd E. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II – abortion is still legal and waht would Huckashmuck do to outlaw it – just make a pronouncement from an Arkansas pulpit banning abortion?

Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 11:22 PM

wccawa on January 4, 2008 at 11:15 PM

Oh jeeze. Ok, his campaign is broken too.

It isn’t about delegates, it’s about perception. Fred coming in third in Iowa, distance 2nd in Wyoming, a no show in NH, and a weak 4th in Michigan does not look good no matter how you slice it.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 11:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.