Getting nervous: 21-point swing towards Huckabee in Virginia — in three days
posted at 1:28 pm on February 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
57-25 for Maverick on Friday, 48-37 for Maverick today. The primary’s tomorrow so it’s probably too late for Huck to jump the canyon but he did pop over to casa Falwell yesterday to jam on “I’ll Fly Away” for the benefit of the local news crews, so who knows? The boss made this point last night but it bears repeating: Imagine how the media would be covering this kneecapping-of-McCain national tour if it were Romney, not Huck, who had stayed in to embark on it. Huckabee skates because he’s even better with the press than McCain is; consider this a sneak preview of how Maverick will be treated if he ends up facing Obama.
The hope was that he’d blow Huck out tomorrow night and that would shoo him to the door, but what if he finishes within single digits now? How does he drop out on that note? “I have no hope to win — even though I gained 25 points in about 48 hours”?
Update: Keep in mind, Virginia’s an open primary and the Messiah is pushing very hard indeed for independents and Republican crossovers. Every centrist he takes is one less for McCain.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I am even less inclined to vote for huckster then I am mccain. We better get some strong, conservative congressional candidates working or the US as we know it may not survive the next 4 years. No matter what, a liberal will be in the White House and we need legislaters who will stand up and fight him/her.
peacenprosperity on February 11, 2008 at 2:42 PM
duff65 on February 11, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Truly our primary system needs to change.
There are a lot of Fred supporters in Texas!
A single national primary voting day would at least allow everyone in every state the opportunity to vote for their chosen candidate, not some rancid left-over from the cat fight that the dog dragged home.
maverick muse on February 11, 2008 at 2:42 PM
It will be fun to see those two attacking each other now.
peacenprosperity on February 11, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Don’t be an ass. A lot of very intelligent people are supporting Huckabee. I know, I know, you’re referring to the candidates, not their supporters. But indirectly you are insulting people if you say that they are supporting a “dumb and dumber” candidate.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I don’t particularly like Huckabee or McCain but right now I’d certainly vote for Huck and will not ever vote for McCain. I would absolutely rather vote for a conservative but we haven’t been given that choice for years.
Buzzy on February 11, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Please point out to me the liberal positions you see in Huckabee’s committed stand on the issues.
Don’t give me crap about Arkansas, let’s talk about NOW. Huckabee was a Republican governor in a Democrat state. Just like Romney was, but most of you gave him a pass on that.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 2:49 PM
No. Not a chance. I will not reward the GOP for shoving hot branding irons up our a$$. I’ll vote for the future of the GOP, who’s survival rests solely on the message being sent that they will not survive a move to the left.
For all of you independents and libratarians who seem to think the move to the left is a good thing and that it’s fun to ridicule those to your right … good luck to you. We’ll find out just how well you enjoy that move to the left that you worked so hard to bring.
Gregor on February 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Sorry, I can’t overlook his record in Arkansas.
My soul won’t let me.
Slublog on February 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM
But that wasn’t really the full question. The rest of the question was … are you one of those currently ridiculing or attacking those of us who refuse to “hold our noses” and vote for McCain? I don’t know if you are or not, but I guarantee that there are those on this thread who would refuse to vote for Huckabee and are currently attacking those of us who feel the same way about McCain.
Gregor on February 11, 2008 at 2:54 PM
You’ll vote to re-elect him in 2012.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Please point out to me the liberal positions you see in Huckabee’s committed stand on the issues.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 2:49 PM
I agree with you. Huck seems to be able to listen to reason. McCain does not.
duff65 on February 11, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Well said.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Sorry, but there’s no way that Fred would VP for the most deceitful scoundrel whose personal attacks at Fred’s great expense were totally inappropriate.
I can’t even think that Huckabee would be better internationally for America than the empty O.
No, I’ll eat crow for McCain who did not sabotage Fred and who can best demolish al Quaeda, but never for cloak and dagger Huckabee who hasn’t the vaguest idea outside.
We’re all stuck between a rock and a hard spot, and somehow Huck appeals to you and others.
maverick muse on February 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I agree with you. Is Huck significantly more liberal than President Bush? At least Huck is concerned with American sovereignty. He was the first candidate to speak out against the Law of the Sea Treaty, which McCain supports.
flyfisher on February 11, 2008 at 2:59 PM
This would put us in worse of mess than we are already in.
I think a rotating, staggered primary system is in order where it would be impossible for the candidates to stack the deck by only focusing on the states that would ensure their nomination.
SimplyKimberly on February 11, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Thanks to campaign finance laws, a single national primary mean only insiders could run. No one else could possibly raise enough money to bother.
flyfisher on February 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Thank you.
Huckabee is taking the stands that the McCain supporters wish McCain would take. You have a viable candidate who will build the fence within the first 18 months of his presidency. So why, again, are you supporting McAmnesty?
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Arkansas: Bastion of liberalism.
So we’re supposed to ignore all the non-conservative actions he took in Arkansas and only consider those aspects of his record that he’s been campaigning on? Way to evaluate a candidate, genius.
The Man Behind the Curtain called- he says that no matter what he does to get you to notice, you still won’t pay attention to him.
Hollowpoint on February 11, 2008 at 3:04 PM
So why, again, are
youthey supporting McAmnesty?ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Thanks to campaign finance laws, a single national primary mean only insiders could run. No one else could possibly raise enough money to bother.
flyfisher on February 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Yeah, it’s obvious that we should go back to selecting candidates at the nominating conventions. As bad a system as that was it was much better than this.
duff65 on February 11, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Please explain? How so?
How would a single national primary day allow for “stacking the deck?”
Gregor on February 11, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Personally, I don’t like the idea because most of the high-population, delegate-rich states are blue, which might force the candidates to lean to the left to reach those voters.
Slublog on February 11, 2008 at 3:10 PM
I can’t vote for McCain. I won’t vote for Hillary thinking that she’s the easier candidate to beat. I don’t like change, hope or dreams, so Obama’s out. Voting for a guy who isn’t running is a lame protest vote, so no for Romney. Ron Paul actually gets some serious consideration at this point, but I will be voting for Huckabee tomorrow in VA.
MT on February 11, 2008 at 3:11 PM
For arguments sake: what about removing all restrictions on money instead? If I want to give Fred $100,000 why shouldn’t I be able to do it?
I’m not advocating that, but the libertarian in me says if I want to waste my money on a candidate, I ought to be able to do it.
flyfisher on February 11, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Hollowpoint, your name is appropriate. Your points are hollow.
When people go negative on Huckabee’s record in Arkansas, they frequently bring up a list of taxes he raised. But do they mention that as Governor of Arkansas, he cut taxes and fees almost 100 times, saving the taxpayers almost $380 million?
Do they mention that he left a surplus of nearly $850 million?
Do they mention that to control spending, Huck believes the President should have the line-item veto?
Do they mention that Huck supports making the Bush tax cuts (set to expire in 2010) permanent?
Don’t tell me he raised taxes in Arkansas. Compare what Huck will do in the presidency vs. what McCain would do. On any issue. Take judicial nominations. Ask both McCain and Huck who is on their short list of judges to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Wrong. Quite the opposite. With the current system, those lacking funds can only afford to stay in the race if they do well in the early primaries, because the current system requires a long drawn out campaign that forces candidates to follow the primaries. With a single-day national primary, everyone would be on equal terms and we wouldn’t see candidates being forced to drop out of the election after doing poorly in some far-left fantasyland such as New Hamshire or Maine.
Also, the absurd requirement that a candidate need 50% of the vote to win should be eliminated to prevent future rigging of elections such as what happened in West Virginia. A single-day primary would also prevent this, as McCain would have resisted the urge to instruct his voters to turn to someone else without knowing what’s going on in the rest of the country at the same time.
Gregor on February 11, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Many Republicans in VA may vote in the Democratic primary since they think the Repbulican one is over. Huck supporters may not. That would make for good news for Huck.
bnelson44 on February 11, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Please explain how a poorly-financed candidate could possibly campaign in all 50 states?
flyfisher on February 11, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Gregor, what is your response to Slublog’s (valid I think) concern at 3:10?
Deety on February 11, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I don’t know this personally, but Ann Coulter said at CPAC that that is exactly how Reagan got nominated. Some very wealthy individuals jump-started his campaign.
What prevents that now? McCain-Feingold. Oh yes, thank you once again, Juan McCain. /sarc
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 3:17 PM
NNtrancer
If your primary is open, I’d suggest crashing the Dem primary and pulling for Obama. Somewhat redundant, since he’s projected to win anyway.
I do hope TX republicans pull for Obama, so that Hillary is off the ticket.
infidelpride on February 11, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Heh. You guys will go to the mat for Huckabee’s “conservative” record? Um, have you read any of the statements put out by actual conservative members of the Southern Baptist council, where they talk about how Huckabee tried so hard to lead the church in a more liberal direction?
funky chicken on February 11, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Obama’s much more liberal, and much more dangerous than Hillary.
funky chicken on February 11, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Also much more motivated to establish his credibility by enacting CHANGE as quickly as possible.
Deety on February 11, 2008 at 3:27 PM
First off, a “poorly financed candidate” is not going to do well in either format. They’re going to be outspent regardless. In a nationwide single-day primary, they wouldn’t have to campaign in 50 different states. Instead, campaigns would be national. Money would be spent on nationwide advertisements instead of having to run 50 different campaigns in 50 different states.
It’s much cheaper to finance a single nationwide campaign then it is to finance 50 seperate campaigns over a year’s period.
Gregor on February 11, 2008 at 3:27 PM
I see your McCain and raise you a Huckabee. Am I the only one in the world who sees how Huckabee wins this thing outright? He hasn’t actually lost a race after Super Tuesday. The Washington caucus was not fully counted, and that only awards half of the state’s delegates. A primary in the next few weeks awards the other half. Huckleberry is on a serious roll. I predict he takes Virginia, and almost takes Maryland, losing DC to McCain by a 10-1 margin. Then Huckabee rolls in other states, denying McCain air. By the time Huck gets Texas and Ohio, he will be in just as good of a position as McCain. Perhaps Romney will send his delegates to McCain. That might be McCain’s last hope. Meanwhile the entire rest of the world is claiming that McCain is the definite GOP nominee. I’m all in. I see Huck having a decent chance of winning it.
indythinker on February 11, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Huckaboom is alive and well:
Fundraising Goal for 2/12: $1,000,000.00
Current: $911,657.31
Show John McCain what you think of him taking conservative support for granted. Contribute to Huckabee now.
And I remind you, once again, that Fred was my first choice and I am not working for the Huckabee campaign. At least not directly. I am very much working for his campaign here in this Hot Air court of public opinion becuase, while I would “hold my nose” and vote for McCain in November if I had to, I don’t want to. I am not a Defeatocrat, and I won’t coronate McCain intentionally. I believe Huck is who he says he is, and the worst we will get from him will be better than the best we could hope for from McCain.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I disagree with it. And let’s be real. Our two leading GOP candidates couldn’t be much further left, could they?
Gregor on February 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM
I support a single day primary. Blue states don’t mean much here, since even states like CA, NY, et al have Conservatives dominating the GOP. It would also end that stupid influence of IA and NH, which is what’s given us Huckabee and McCain, and eliminated Rudy & Romney.
If we had a single day national primary, we would have had Rudy or Romney as our nominee right now. Of course, on the Dem side, they’d have had Clinton, rather than Obama, but that would have been their problem, not ours.
Those who oppose a single day primary, how about changing the day of the national elections from November 5 to a period spanning 3 months? Hmmmm?
infidelpride on February 11, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Yeah, those stupid Christians and their willingness to be easily led. We’re all too dumb to research the issues for ourselves and require someone to tell us who to vote for. /sarc
I have never in my 38 years heard any pastor tell me who to vote for, and that goes doubly for Thomas Road. Feel free to watch the service online and see if you can see any time where Jonathan Falwell says to vote for someone specifically, says who he’s voting for, or even mentions that there is an election in VA on Tuesday. You can watch it in its entirety at http://www.trbc.org
acleaver on February 11, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Could you at least wait with cheering for your boy McSpain until the primaries are over, AP? I mean, it’s your call, but it just seems — unseemly to me.
Not that having Hickapoo on the ticket would make the least difference to me, I wouldn’t vote for him either, but it warms my conservative heart to see McVain getting a finger in the eye for a change, and I’m enjoying every second of it.
Misha I on February 11, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Huck disproves your point. He won the first contest with virtually no money. Regardless of what you think of him as a candidate, as a former Republican governor, he ought to have the ability to run for president. He would not have had that ability if we had a single national primary.
flyfisher on February 11, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Well Said!
Ditto.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Candidates would only focus on certain states in order to reach the magic delegate number. It would be worse than what we have now because there would be more choices to pick from.
Why campaign in or focus on Wisconsin or Montana or Oregon when you can campaign in and focus on several high delegate count states like California or Texas or New York?
I would rather have a rotating (different every election), staggered (primary day in separate months) primary system.
SimplyKimberly on February 11, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Well, if you’re right then I’m even more for it now than before. I point to infidelpride post 3:30 PM:
Or, maybe Fred if he had gotten in at the right time and timed the single-day election just as he was at his peak.
I can’t stand Huckabee, so your example boosts my support.
Sorry, lol.
Gregor on February 11, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Not if we happened to vote during that period when Huck was atop of the polls. Or what about those weeks when Fred was in the lead? Phony media-created hype might determine our nominee if we used that system.
flyfisher on February 11, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Mitt Romney shouldn’t help McCain at all after the way he was treated by the McCain/Rudy crowd that saw Romney as a threat.
I’m no fan of Huckabee but I do want to see a brokered convention that thwarts the “shut up and support McCain” crowd. There is a fundamental difference from an ancient RINO and my views on a whole lot of issues. I want those differences to be fully discussed before the party settles on an unelectable nominee (which I think McCain is) and demands unquestioning “unity” instead of working to build a winning coalition that includes social conservatives and Evangelicals.
In short, there is no room on the Tijuana express for anybody that has a different view of the party than McCain. If pumping Huckabee up and forcing the kind of debate that would have happened had not the liberal wing of the GOP decided to pave the way for Rudy by stacking the primary deck against social conservatives.
highhopes on February 11, 2008 at 3:38 PM
I think our current system is ridiculous. But under the current campaign finance laws, I think a single national primary would be worse. Only the rich or very well-connected would have a shot. I like a world where a Huck (and I am not a Huck supporter) at least has a chance.
flyfisher on February 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Agreed.
I will not vote for, nor want to see a Dhim as POTUS. But the shut up and take it crowd are getting on my nerves because McCain isn’t owed my support. And I have very substantial reasons to dislike McCain and think that he is bad for this country.
SimplyKimberly on February 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Heh. Yeah, and we don’t have that now? Come on.
Gregor on February 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Well, I’d like a national primary for the single very simple reason that I’d like to, just once, be able to choose a candidate from a pool larger than the one Iowa and New Hamster have decided that I should have to choose from.
Blech. Now I’m left with choosing between Obambi or Hickaboo. Either poke a finger in the Hildebeest’s eye or McSpain’s eye. Frankly, both are equally satisfying.
Misha I on February 11, 2008 at 3:41 PM
EXACTLY
Gregor on February 11, 2008 at 3:42 PM
You express my feelings very explicitly.
maxine on February 11, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I agree Misha, but a national primary would be like Iowa and New Hampshire on crack.
A rotating system of like 3 separate Super Tuesdays would be a better way to go because it would allow for more choices in the different states.
I’m sick to death of the early states getting to tell me who I can vote for.
SimplyKimberly on February 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM
No, Huck got atop the polls as a result of his IA win, but even then, Rudy was still atop the pack. It was only after NH and MI that Rudy lost that top spot.
If you had all of these in 1 day, then Huck would have no advantages of bible thumpers in IA, and McCain would have no advantages of Independents and Democrats swinging it in NH. It would be whatever the national polls at the time states, which would have meant Rudy on top. As for the concern about MT, OR, WI, et al being ignored, they are ignored even now: Romney and Obama won several Caucus states, which their rivals pretty much ignored. Which is how you had Ron Paul come in 2nd in some of these contests.
I recognize that many Conservatives would have problems with him just like they did with McCain, but Rudy does not have the record of stabbing Conservatives in the back like McCain did in the senate (except for the time he supported Mario Cuomo against Patakis). And he admits his stand on abortion is out of step with the party, but would nominate judges like Roberts and Alito. That’s different from McCain, who with his Gang of 14 like tactics, prevented the ‘nuclear option’ [only in the senate can such hyperbole be used to describe a freaking rule] from being invoked, thereby making it impossible for nominees like Miguel Estrada to get through.
infidelpride on February 11, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I still fail to see how Huck is worse then McCain
- The Cat
MirCat on February 11, 2008 at 3:48 PM
If I were able to write my own version of a primary system it would go something like this:
Hold a lottery to determine which states are to be included in a primary date for Jan, Feb, Mar of the election year.
Each lottery would be comprised of rotating groups of states comprised of high/low delegate states with an equal ratio for each date in Jan, Feb, Mar.
The lottery would be held 2 months prior to the dates in Jan, Feb, Mar to not allow candidates to come up with a means to stack the deck in their favor. They could be forced to campaign in all the states vs. just the few they think will yield them the better results.
Perhaps it would have to be tweaked a bit, but I want to prevent candidates from focusing on only certain states beforehand to gain a technical advantage in the race for delegates.
SimplyKimberly on February 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Why would it be IA and NH on crack? Each candidate would work on their strengths – Rudy would target NY, CA, NJ, and other states he thinks he needs, Romney targets the mid-Western States, McCain targets New England, Huckabee the South, Tancredo the border states, et al.
I’d change it in a few ways – start the whole thing earlier. Have the first round of primaries in year 3 of a term, and obviously, one’s likely to get a fractured result. Then pick the top 3 or 4 candidates from that round, and have another round of primaries (call it secondaries?) a few months later, say March of year 4. From this round, the top candidate gets the nomination: it never goes to the convention floor.
infidelpride on February 11, 2008 at 3:55 PM
That is what I want to prevent. I want a more nationalized primary system but one on the same day would be somewhat worse because only a few states would be targeted. I would like all 50 states to be included.
SimplyKimberly on February 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Other than the fact that he hates Mormons and they know it?
bnelson44 on February 11, 2008 at 4:05 PM
That’s more likely to happen at the start, when you have 10 candidates, and some of the lesser ones are more likely to focus on the MT, ND, ID, et al to put together a delegate count. Otherwise, the only other way is to frontload all these states with IA, and shut out the views of all the populated states, such as CA, NY, FL, TX, NJ, MA, et al.
That way, the time beween the mid-terms and the final elections is more usefully spent, instead of a year of campaigning over the single primaries.
infidelpride on February 11, 2008 at 4:06 PM
I saw a version of a staggered primary system at someone’s blog but I can’t remember where. It may have been slublog’s or see-dubya’s. It got me thinking about how to do it and make it more comprehensive and include all the states without allowing a pre-determined game plan by any of the candidates to just handpick states. My ideal primary system would be one that involves all 50 states.
SimplyKimberly on February 11, 2008 at 4:06 PM
I agree, but Mitt might still do that in an effort to thwart Huckabee. Don’t underestimate the amount of animosity between Mormons and evangelicals. Sad but true.
Mitt joined the “shut up and support McCain” crowd when he “suspended” his campaign. While I truly think that Romney would have been a good President, I thought his explanation of his exit was horrible. He left the race because he knew he couldn’t win a three-man race and Huckabee wasn’t going to quit. But rather than say that, he said “In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.” What a bunch of BS! Romney said that to try to frame Huckabee’s campaign as “aiding a surrender to terror” if Huckabee did not also “shut up and support McCain”. For that alone, I am glad I did not support Mitt and chose to support Huckabee instead.
Mitt quit (or more accurately “suspended”) when he was a distant second. He probably doesn’t want to be humiliated by seeing the evangelical who was a distant third actually win the nomination and the presidency (messing up his hopes for 2012). I just hope Romney doesn’t “resume” his 2008 campaign after Huckabee passes him in the number of delegates. Doing so would be as effective as Perot quitting and resuming, and would only guarantee a McCain nomination and a McCain loss in the general election. If Romney is sincere that he doesn’t want to make it “more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win”, he needs to stay out of the 2008 race.
By the way, read how al-jazeera reported Romney’s exit.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I think we should elect our candidates by having them play a game of quarters. The last one standing gets the nomination. . The most important thing is to have a president that can hold his liquor.
myamphibian on February 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I am a conservative in Virginia voting tomorrow and the reason I won’t vote for Huck is that he is a mean spirited jerk, just like McCain, but he hides behind his religion as a cloak of untouchability.
Huck pretends to be using humor when he smiles while enviscerating people. No thanks.
I’ll either stick with my Fred or Mitt vote out of protest or crossover to repay the mischief from the other side that leaves us these two losers to chose from.
pistolero on February 11, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Meh. Classier than the Jesus/Satan question.
Slublog on February 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM
According to the latest polls, Huckabee would not even be able to beat Hillary. Time to wake up and face reality folks.
myamphibian on February 11, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Pistolero:
I agree with you, I don’t need to look at Huckabee’s record. Just listening to what he said about his opponents has been enough. Truly a sleazy guy. I have never liked McCain, I didn’t want him as a candidate in 2000,and I haven’t changed my mind. I am hoping that there is enough protest at convention,so that we get a better candidate.
conservativegrandma on February 11, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I agree that Huckabee never should have said that. But he apologized to Romney, face-to-face, looking him in the eye and sincerely apologizing. Not one of those “I’m sorry if you were offended” apologies.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Kind of like those Zogby polls that predicted a strong win by Obama in California?
The only polls that matter are the caucuses and primaries.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Did he manage to “un-say” the comment?
Oh, that’s right. Can’t do that, can you?
Slublog on February 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Well McCain would argue that those polls have spoken as well. I’m not upset that Huck is staying in the race though. It will keep the republicans in the news and he will atleast be civil it appears. I even sense that El Rushbo is softening up to McCain finally.
myamphibian on February 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM
That is simply untrue. Huck’s surge in the national polls began before the Iowa caucus. I believe it started in late November and by the week before Christmas he was virtually tied with Rudy.
flyfisher on February 11, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Looks like Huckmania really, really , really wants a cabinet position.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 11, 2008 at 4:53 PM
My favorite thing about Huckabee is that he’s got John Bolton as an adviser.
LOL
joncoltonis on February 11, 2008 at 4:58 PM
First of all, let me suggest a sequence of events. Before Romney dropped out, McCain hinted to Huck’s people that Huck would be the VP candidate. At that point, assuming Romney was in the race to stay, Huckabee would likely have the leverage to give McCain a victory and McCain needed him badly. Now that Romney dropped out, McCain assumed he didn’t need Huck any more and told him to take a hike. What’s happening now is Huck taking revenge on McCain.
Igor R. on February 11, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Taking revenge in what way? Huck is not bashing McCain.
myamphibian on February 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM
John Bolton On John McCain
bnelson44 on February 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM
I disliked Huck as much as anybody and made it known wherever I could. As things stand now, I can see that Huck is better than McCain: he took a “no Amnesty” pledge and being the chameleon that he is completely changed his tune and became a brand-new conservative. I like that better than McCain simply taking anyone concerned with the Amnesty for a fool and just using double talk to conceal his intention to push the Amnesty through as soon as he can. I’ve always said that if you disagree with someone, a political prostitute is better than a true believer, because with the prostitute there is a chance you can convince them to change their mind.
Igor R. on February 11, 2008 at 5:03 PM
You have a very active imagination
How about this theory:
Huck couldn’t drop out right after Mitt because that would have meant he was only in the race because of Mitt. Now he stays in because he is winning.
bnelson44 on February 11, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Anyone against immediate mass deportation regardless of the logistics is pro-amnesty? I’m getting sick and tired of all the rherotic.
myamphibian on February 11, 2008 at 5:06 PM
He is taking revenge by running. I don’t believe he has a plan in mind to win the Presidency, so what the heck is he doing? There are too many proportional primaries for Huck to win all the delegates he needs,( I don’t agree with the posts here that he has a chance) he won’t be able to force a brokered convention. And a brokered convention won’t elect Huck with McCain being the establishment candidate and having won the plurality of the vote anyway.
Igor R. on February 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM
I’m with you. If we shut down the magnets, they will leave. Heck, they’ll even pay for their own ride home.
flyfisher on February 11, 2008 at 5:09 PM
“establishment candidate” is just more rhetoric. The fact of the matter is this. The republican party is conservative, the democratic party liberal. Without a percentage of moderate (ie. independent) voters, neither side would be in power. That is just reality. In 2004, Ahnold, McCain, Rudy and Zel Miller all spoke at the republican national convention during prime time. Without them, chances are we would be trying to unseat President John Kerry. If the more right wing conservatives can’t espouse conservatism without insulting more mainstream conservatives and moderates, they’re going to do more harm than good.
myamphibian on February 11, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Looks like the folks from Hope, Arkansas stick together.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 11, 2008 at 5:16 PM
He’s running for front-runner status in the next Republican presidential primary.
RightOFLeft on February 11, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Huckabee is teetering on being mathematically eliminated from the electoral Republican nomination. In a brokered convention he’d still be helpless to stop McCain from picking up the 100 or so delegates McCain would need for the nomination. But… he can take all that momentum he’s stealing from McCain’s general election bid into the 2012 Republican nomination. Or… Huckabee is staging a hostile takeover bid for the VP slot, which would also make him the front-runner in the next Republican primary.
Effectively, Virginia is holding the earliest primary, by four years, in the history of early primaries.
RightOFLeft on February 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM
No, anyone in favor of amnesty (or it’s amnesty-lite cousins) is pro-amnesty.
But you seem to by suggesting that anyone opposed to amnesty is in favor of “immediate mass deportation”, and that is simply false.
Hollowpoint on February 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Simply Kimberly
Slublog posted the dialogue you echo at Ace of Spades HQ.
I just want to be able to vote for my candidate of choice the same day as everyone else.
How things get manipulated at that point would be other points of exchange. Winner-take-all should be annihilated. As far as candidates spoiling densely populated states, that will probably never change even with rotation. With regards to delegates, I don’t see much virtue in the centuries’ old delegate routine, either. We’ve been forced already into a homogenized 21st Century America where states’ rights and citizens’ Constitutional rights are negated and the homogenization of American life is enforced by the old guard. The majority voice should make a decisive mark in the outcome.
As far as your concerns, I don’t see that the rotational method would actually solve any of the existing problems without creating others. Gregor pointed out arguments already.
The vice in the system regarding $$$spending “should” be (but it never will be as money talks louder than anything) annihilated. “If only” no advertising–plenty of debates instead–round table discussions with absolute time enforcement (microphone on during one’s turn, off as soon as time expires and the other’s turn begins exactly by the clock)–websites where voters can visit of their own volition, party websites where synopsis of each candidate’s platform is charted in comparison–campaign visits organized by local supporters–Televised time be apportioned equally amongst candidates. Whatever, none of that will ever happen.
My point remains, all of the voters in all 50 states have the right as Americans to vote for the candidate of their choice. The GOP party system should not be so obtuse as today’s segregationist and crooked “big tent”.
maverick muse on February 11, 2008 at 5:52 PM
I agree. My wish is that we could have a primary system that involves all 50 states. A single primary on one day would allow candidates to map out a game plan that would let them target bigger states and ignore the smaller ones. That seems wrong to me. But as a Texan, I think I should have a vote where I can pick the candidate of my choice, but I don’t want to behave as though a smaller state residents shouldn’t have an equal opportunity.
SimplyKimberly on February 11, 2008 at 6:14 PM
I think he is trying to keep social conservative issues in the forefront.
I’m suggesting that there needs to be a realistic and humane solution to dealing with the illegal immigrants that are here. The answer lies somewhere between mass deportation and blanket amnesty. I honestly don’t see McCain or President Bush pushing for the latter.
myamphibian on February 11, 2008 at 6:21 PM
I love it! I predicted this thought process a few days ago (that McCain would consider Huckabee as “stealing” “his” nomination, just like Hillary considers Obama as “stealing” “her” nomination). I love it. I absolutely love it. McVain’s hubris will be his downfall. Expect to see his angry side rear it’s ugly head after Huck wins Virginia.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM
You are so wrong. Think about this: Why did Hillary decide not to run in 2004? Because she would have lost. To a born-again Christian Republican.
Now think about this:
Do you think that if Bush were constitutionally able to run for a third term, and chose to, he would win?
He would. Note the cheers of “Four more years!” at CPAC.
Now, why would we want to mess with the formula that brought us victory in 2000 and 2004? Huck is “Da Man” at this point. He is the right man. At the right time. He will win the nomination and the Presidency. And you will be glad he did. He will be better than Bush. Not a clone of, but just as good as, Reagan. I know that a lot of you don’t see that yet. It’s ok. You will.
Note to “Anti-Hucksters”:
Keep your words soft and sweet. You’ll have to eat them.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 6:49 PM
…and the fact that the only two Democratic Presidents since 1900 to get a greater percentage of the popular vote than Bush got in 2004 were…FDR and LBJ.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM
My state primary is not until May, but I really don’t see Huckabee getting the nomination. He reminds me of my evangelical uncle, very nice guy and I love him, but he has always been extremely liberal other than on social issues.
myamphibian on February 11, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Huck is looking to build up an influence bloc with him as the head.
He can become the next Secretary of HUD.
And play bass at ribbon cuttings.
He’s out of his depth otherwise.
The Peter Principle preacher.
profitsbeard on February 11, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Huck has a couple of things McCain does not:
1) Personality
2) Sense of “he’s like me”.
3) Folksy
4) He’s not stiff when he speaks.
It may not be much, it counts for a lot in today’s politics. Just ask Obama.
SouthernGent on February 11, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Oh! And I predicted LAST WEEK that Hucky would win Virginia. SW Virginia…Danville, Roanoke, Lynchburg, Blacksburg, Martinsville, etc. will turn out in droves for him.
SouthernGent on February 11, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »