CNN poll of Republicans: Palin 29, Huckabee 26, Romney 21

posted at 3:33 pm on February 27, 2009 by Allahpundit

The margin of error’s 4.5 percent so in effect the result’s no different from their poll of Republicans and independents in December, which Huck won by two points. But here’s a twist: While Huckabee did better with Republican women three months ago, the tide has suddenly turned.

While the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll doesn’t indicate a clear frontrunner, it does suggest there’s a gender gap among rank and file Republicans.

“Among GOP men, the same pattern emerges — no clear advantage for Palin, Huckabee or Romney. But among Republican women, it’s a different story. Palin has a 10-point edge among Republican women, winning 32 percent support among them to 22 percent for Huckabee and 20 percent for Romney,” adds Holland. “With the sampling error, that’s not enough to say for sure that Palin is in the lead, but it does indicate that if the primaries were held tomorrow, Palin would have a good chance of being the favorite among GOP women.”

Any theories as to why? Bristol’s been in the news lately, so maybe there’s some sort of identification with Palin as mother stemming from that? I’m stumped. Exit question: Think with me here for a minute. If The One gets the economy on track by 2011 and it looks like he’s waltzing towards reelection, wouldn’t Huckabee actually be a good pick for the nomination? Granted, he’s white, southern, and evangelical, none of which screams “big tent,” but he’s also charming, media savvy, good on race, and comfortable with middle-class economic messaging in a way that Romney, say, isn’t. In other words, he might help boost the party’s image, which isn’t a bad consolation prize in a year you’re destined to lose. Plus, getting crushed in 2012 means he’s an also-ran in 2016, when the GOP would have a real chance again. Second look at Huck as sacrificial lamb?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Allahpundid, Huckabee and Romney are NOT going to be our candidates. NO. You need to stop with this kind of crap.

It’s going to be either Palin or Jindal in 2012, and if we lose, probably the other one in 2016, unless somebody new comes along.

joe_doufu on February 27, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Hm, so the pathetic Troll-Trio of Bunny Shaker, Crapitulus and Atlanta “Obama is Reaganesque” Voter perform synchronized postings at Hot Air.

LMAO

You call everyone a troll who’s not a hard-right, mouth-foaming, Palin-loving Conservative. Give it a break already.

Atlanta Voter on February 27, 2009 at 7:05 PM

“Obama is Reaganesque”
Norwegian on February 27, 2009 at 6:58 PM

There you go again, quoting Charles Krauthammer.

benny shakar on February 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM

People will be so sick of Obama he won’t get re-elected. The man’s ego is huge and it will be his downfall as well.

SouthernGent on February 27, 2009 at 7:09 PM

We haven’t ever been through a President as marxist

belad on February 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM

marxists dont participate in elections, and they most certainly dont spend money on welfare, which they consider a 1/2 a$$ed attempt at denying them their goals.

…a Congress as radically left and in such a majority that we have now,

LBJ has a larger congressional majority, and used it to usher in the great society. more on that later.

Jimmy Carter? THe man was a harmless fool compared to Obama.

Polk? He was responsible for securing the largest US land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase, hardly a horribly president.

Wilson? Probably closest to Obama (read Goldberg’s Liberal Facism) but still far less dangerous.

LBJ? Nah, just incompetent, but not in the same degree as Obama.

Sorry, try again.

Norwegian on February 27, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Ill give you carter and polk, but theres a real case to be made for wilson and LBJ being much, much worse.

Obama, as it stands, is really only redesigning old institutions in america, with the exception of health care. We’ve had more progressive tax systems in the past and welfare was way way way way way worse under LBJ. I mean effing terrible under LBJ. Obama could get everything he wants and more. We still wouldnt have as liberal a set of governing policies as we’ve had in the past. Domestically, LBJ did the most “liberal” damage to this nation, and i know that very well. My parents grew up in LBJ’s south bronx and spanish harlem. I see the plans now, and know they will not bring what the great society brought to the south bronx.

Wilson, on the other hand, is poison as far as im concerned. His notions of liberal interventionism are antithetical to everything I understand in terms of geopolitics. im a cold realist in those matters, and wilsonian ideals muck up any chance of an international order based on moves that maximize benefit and minimize risk. Obama, with his hawkish cabinet, could never adversely effect foreign relations as strongly as wilson.

And there you have it, why obama’s not the worst president ever. sad that i had to write all that not even 2 months into his term.

ernesto on February 27, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Public Policy Poll November 30,2008 Saxby 53% Martin 46%
Public Policy Poll November 23,2008 Saxby 52% Martin 46%
Rasmussen Reports November 18,2008 Saxby 50% Martin 46%

All polls, like every other polling firm, take turnout into consideration. Saxby Chambliss leads by an average of 5.6%.

December 1, 2008: Palin campaigns for Saxby.
December 2, 2008: Saxby wins hte election by 14.6%
December 3, 2008: Saxby credits his victory to Palin

Norwegian on February 27, 2009 at 7:10 PM

You call everyone a troll who’s not a hard-right, mouth-foaming, Palin-loving Conservative. Give it a break already.

Atlanta Voter on February 27, 2009 at 7:05 PM

No he’s calling mean-spirited commenters like bennyshaker trolls.

terryannonline on February 27, 2009 at 7:14 PM

Hm, so the pathetic Troll-Trio of Bunny Shaker, Crapitulus and Atlanta “Obama is Reaganesque” Voter perform synchronized postings at Hot Air.

LMAO
Ignore them. They are just bitter.

terryannonline on February 27, 2009 at 7:02 PM

And laughable. But I agree, I will ignore these clowns from now on.

Norwegian on February 27, 2009 at 7:14 PM

ernesto on February 27, 2009 at 7:09 PM

ernesto, we hardley knew ye

promachus on February 27, 2009 at 7:15 PM

TheBlueSite
“Why does everyone love Palin anyhow?”

Well I guess that treatment the media gave her paid dividends didn’t it? I mean they fooled you right. I guess you haven’t done your research in to the Governor of Alaska. Anyone that actually knows who this woman is, doesn’t regurgitate Katie Couric talking points.

A lot of us loved Governor Palin since before you had even heard her name Sir.

Libertah on February 27, 2009 at 7:21 PM

Huckabee could help the party? Are you out of your mind? Even as a sacrificial lamb, he would cement the popular (leftist) image of Republicans as bigoted and ignorant. He should either join the Flat Earth Party, or get out of politics entirely. He can spend his days strumming his banjo guitar on Fox News.

doppelganglander on February 27, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Public Policy Poll November 30,2008 Saxby 53% Martin 46%
Public Policy Poll November 23,2008 Saxby 52% Martin 46%
Rasmussen Reports November 18,2008 Saxby 50% Martin 46%

All polls, like every other polling firm, take turnout into consideration. Saxby Chambliss leads by an average of 5.6%.

December 1, 2008: Palin campaigns for Saxby.
December 2, 2008: Saxby wins hte election by 14.6%
December 3, 2008: Saxby credits his victory to Palin

Norwegian on February 27, 2009 at 7:10 PM

2004 Georgia Presidential Election

Bush 57.97%
41.37%
16.6 point spread

2008 Georgia Presidential Election

McCain 52.20%
Obama 47.00%
5.2 point spread

2012?

Atlanta Voter on February 27, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Obama, as it stands, is really only redesigning old institutions in america, with the exception of health care. We’ve had more progressive tax systems in the past and welfare was way way way way way worse under LBJ. I mean effing terrible under LBJ. Obama could get everything he wants and more. We still wouldnt have as liberal a set of governing policies as we’ve had in the past. Domestically, LBJ did the most “liberal” damage to this nation, and i know that very well. My parents grew up in LBJ’s south bronx and spanish harlem. I see the plans now, and know they will not bring what the great society brought to the south bronx.

Wilson, on the other hand, is poison as far as im concerned. His notions of liberal interventionism are antithetical to everything I understand in terms of geopolitics. im a cold realist in those matters, and wilsonian ideals muck up any chance of an international order based on moves that maximize benefit and minimize risk. Obama, with his hawkish cabinet, could never adversely effect foreign relations as strongly as wilson.

Ernesto, I agree 100% with your assessment of Wilson.

On LBJ, I have a somewhat different view. Yes, he is author of the “Great Society”. Yes, what he did to places like South Bronx and Spanish Harlem is beyond the pale. However, I would say these were somewhat isolated (perhaps test areas?). You maybe also add in places like Appalachia. But the rest of America did not really sense the same effect. I mean how much could he do? Taxes were worse in the progressive sense, but government spending as a percentage of GDP was far less that it is today. LBJ was preoccupid with Vitenam, the GOP won huge in 1966, and Nixon took over in 1968.

Obama has a marxist background (Alyinsky, et al). Although its early in his term, the signals of a disaster is all around us. Universal healthcare, confiscatory tax rates on the “wealthy”, etc. I knew Carter would be bad the moment he took office in 1976, but my sense is of Obama is that he is far far worse.

Norwegian on February 27, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Atlanta Voter on February 27, 2009 at 7:24 PM

dude, at least i try and approach issues from the point of view of this blog. you’re just kind of trolling. i hope people dont see me here like they see this cat.

ernesto on February 27, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Atlanta Voter on February 27, 2009 at 7:24 PM

I’d like to know where you are getting the notion that this has something to do with Sarah Palin and not John McCain.

Also take into consideration that Georgia has a large African-American population, and this demographic had high turnout in this election. McCain still won the state by over 5 points.

The reason for the difference between 04 and 08 is that the people on the left had a candidate they could be enthusiastic about, whereas they did not have that in 04. I would seriously doubt that Obama will generate that level of enthusiasm in ’12.

doug1981 on February 27, 2009 at 7:28 PM

There you go again, quoting Charles Krauthammer.

benny shakar on February 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM

You could quote the Pope, and it would still be untrue. The giveaway is that Reagan never had to be anyone but himself.

Obama is a fraud.

chunderroad on February 27, 2009 at 7:28 PM

I couldn’t understand how anybody could say that the MSM didn’t like Romney until you mentioned what they talked about BEFORE his great “Religion” speech. After that speech I heard nobody, not online, not on the TV show, or radio mention his Mormon religion. But you know what, Fox News especially tried every day to mention Mike Huckabee, “the Pastor” so people would only think about what he did 20 years before and not the 10 1/2 executive experience years as a Gov. of Arkansas. Even during the debates, Mike Huckabee wanted to talk about the issues, but he “only” got questions about religion. Why, you ask so the public would pigeonhole him and then he would lose. That’s our Republican establishment for you. From the sound of some of you it worked didn’t. When the people of this country hear him speak, they like him and what he has to say. As far a being an “old man” he’s only 53!!! That’s just about the right age, not too old and not too young. This poll was taken before Mike Huckabee’s speech on CPAC…I’ll bet his numbers would be up if another poll was taken now.

I DO like Sarah Palin a lot. If it wasn’t for Mike Huckabee I would be supporting her. But you have to face the facts. The MSM media keyholed her so bad in this last election that she needs time to overcome their snarky remarks so the public will stop thinking she is stupid, and time to get more experience so in the future nobody can claim that over her head. Some of you maybe won’t like my next comment, but I don’t think even Sarah Palin could have governed the State of Arkansas any different than Mike Huckabee. He had to govern with what he was given by the Dems…very bad roads, very bad schools and $200M deficit. There was no money to pay for the improvement of schools that the Supreme Court of Arkansas court ordered him to do. He didn’t have oil rich fields to help with the lack of money. I live in Ind. and many feel Gov. Daniels is a great Conservative and he is. But we had very high property taxes, so this super Conservative raised the Sales tax and the cigarette tax in our state. Nobody in the Republican establishment said, “Oh how liberal to raise taxes”. No, they still support Gov. Daniels. Do you see how unfair they are and some of you are against Gov. Huckabee. What would you have done in Arkansas? Find out the truth about how he governed by going to hucksarmy.com, click the Discussion button, and scroll down to “Mike Huckabee on the Issues” and read all about what really happened in Arkansas and why before you condemn him for how he had to govern. He left his position as Gov. with over $850M surplus. He still had a 65% approval rating in Arkansas last summer…this is from a very Democratic state. Don’t be fooled by Arkansas voting Republican in the Presidential elections. It is very Democratic in most of their state elections. Gov. Huckabee had to work with them to accomplish anything for the people of his state.

VFT on February 27, 2009 at 7:30 PM

Norwegian on February 27, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Well yes, i can see what you mean about the reach of great society legislation, and the geopolitical preoccupation with vietnam. and you make a good point about spending relative to GDP. these are troubling developments, to be sure. but the confiscatory tax rates on the wealthy you speak of are simply consequences of a progressive tax system…one that was far, far more progressive in the past. And the marxism charge…alyinsky is more radical agitator than actual marxist…and obama’s policies are surely those of a social democratic state…not actual marxism. i tend not to apply those labels given the term’s actual definition…but then again im not a die hard conservative on all or even most matters…

ernesto on February 27, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Reagan came to office to do something: shrink government, lower taxes, rebuild American defenses. Obama made clear Tuesday night that he intends to be equally transformative. His three goals: universal health care, universal education, and a new green energy economy highly funded and regulated by government.

Krauthammer is saying Obama intends to be as transformative as Reagan, but in effect he will be the anti-Reagan.

chunderroad on February 27, 2009 at 7:37 PM

Some of you don’t like Huckabee’s “populist” image. Then why do you like Sarah Palin. She is just as “populist” as Huckabee. Don’t you see, this country is ready for a down to earth person like Huckabee or Palin. They don’t want anybody representing the Wall Street crowd or the rich. Republicans might prefer Huckabee not be so “populist”, but during the General Election, this would win him many, many more votes than an elitist. Republicans have been labeled only for the rich long enough. It’s time to support the middle class and poor along with the rich. Time to reach out to the Blacks and Hispanics now, not 1 year before the primary. These people see right through that effort. Huckabee already does reach out to them, he has always tried to build relationships with them…he always has and they like him for that. He got 48% of the black vote in Democratic Arkansas when he ran for Governor. No other Republican can claim anywhere near that support from African Americans. Don’t get me wrong, Republicans have a very, very long road to go to get their votes away from Obama, but Huckabee is your best bet to try and do that.

VFT on February 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM

ernesto, these progressive tax codes never proposed “tax cuts” for people who don’t pay taxes. That is Marxist wealth redistribution, and this country has never stood for that.

chunderroad on February 27, 2009 at 7:40 PM

It’s all hypothetical, but let me just say that in 2012, if in the primaries it’s Palin, Huckabee, et al, I’ll vote for Palin.

If it ends up being Huckabee and Obama for the election, no matter how much I want Palin to be the president over Huckabee, I’ll still vote Huckabee because I believe he’d be a better president than Obama.

Now if a conservative comes around that blows me away more than Palin, I’ll vote for that person in the primary, but when it comes down to it, I’ll vote for the one who is closer to the right in general elections–I voted for Bush (Didn’t particularly like Bush), and I voted for McCain (Would have voted for Thompson in the primaries had it still been close–I live in California).

mauipundit on February 27, 2009 at 7:40 PM

ernesto on February 27, 2009 at 7:32 PM

ernesto, these progressive tax codes never proposed “tax cuts” for people who don’t pay taxes. That is Marxist wealth redistribution, and this country has never stood for that.

chunderroad on February 27, 2009 at 7:41 PM

Sorry for the duplicate comment.

chunderroad on February 27, 2009 at 7:41 PM

I’ll never vote for Huckabee because of his tuition breaks for illegal immigrants and that rapist / murderer he let go. There were a few other things. He just creeps me out.

chunderroad on February 27, 2009 at 7:45 PM

Huck in the top three shows the right base is still susceptible to BS over substance.

McCainitus.

Speakup on February 27, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Even as an evangelical, I’d rather have Romney than Huckabee. Huckabee trashed Romney and endorsed McCain. That’s partly how we got into this mess! However, like I’ve said before, it’s way too early. Let’s not do so much infighting that we can’t take on the real enemy.

Christian Conservative on February 27, 2009 at 8:00 PM

this doesnt have much to do with this topic, but it is about Sarah. There is a poster over on the TeamSarah website talking about how they read how conservative and loyal Sarah really is. Apparently Sarah agreed with the conservative house republicans during the Paulson/bush bailout plan in september of 2008. According to this story Palin tried hard to convince McCain to side with the house republicans and vote against this bill. Also this could be a reason why there seemed to be a rift going between the Palin and McCain people. Palin held her tongue during the campaign because it would have looked real bad for Mac. If this is true, and Sarah was trying hard to get him to vote against this I love her even more.

ousoonerfan15 on February 27, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Palin and Jindal should focus on their States during this depression.

The election is too far away.

getalife on February 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM

technopeasant on February 27, 2009 at 6:31 PM

I don’t disagree that Palin has libertarian qualities. As previously stated, I like her. She has what so few politicians have. Common sense. However, she need not apply for national office anytime in the next decade- too polarizing.

This election cycle reminds me of the the contest between Goldwater and Johnson. Palin and Paul are probably forever relegated to local politics, because they were painted as extremist weirdos (in Ron Paul’s case its kinda true) but both candidates sewed the tiny seeds for a burgeoning revolution.

shannonkelly on February 27, 2009 at 8:56 PM

To all conservatives…..

Please do me a favor and not start this poll thing right now. Let us get the house and senate back (with the right representatives from our states) and then see which candidate will have the gumption to carry the conservative torch that will make the difference with the favorable congress. There are 4 years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 before we are voting.

OneConservative on February 27, 2009 at 9:02 PM

ousoonerfan15 on February 27, 2009 at 8:19 PM
I would not doubt it in a minute. I have a feeling it is true.

On the topic at hand, If Gov. Palin where to run in 2012 I thinks sher could win. Those of us who support Gov. Palin have heard from her in her own voice and that make a real difference and not the McCain induced voice of 08. If and when Gov. Palin campaigns on top of the ticket she will slice and dice any opponents before they know what has happened. Technopeasant has stated the Gov. Palin’s appeal and achievements rather well in many of the post here at HA. The Independence are starting to see a whole different Gov. Palin now and that is to her advantage. Why might you ask? It because Gov. Palin is speaking for herself now and I for one like it that way. Finally, give Gov. Palin a chance and not let the MSM make up your mind for you. Your are Conservative ***damn it grow up and don’t let the MSM treat you like a sheep.

Clyde5445 on February 27, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Palin / Muccio 2012

ohiorebel on February 27, 2009 at 9:39 PM

Atlanta Voter – a few facts

1. Before Palin came aboard, McCain was only able to attract crowds of 500 or less and was just about out of money. Palin brought crowds, contributions and volunteers.

2. If you followed Rasmussen’s Daily Tracking Polling, which obviously you didn’t, you would be aware that the ONLY days between the time that McCain was ahead (from mid-may through Nov. 4) were the days between the time he announced Palin as VP candidate and the financial meltdown

3. In 2004 the GOP was a strong brand (winning the presidency and both houses of Congress). Things fell apart in 2006 when the GOP lost both houses of Congress and the majority of contests. Palin bucked the trend by getting elected in 2006.

4. Palin’s success in helping increase Chambliss’s lead in the the Georgia run-off demonstrates that McCain (not Palin) was the problem. Chambliss himself admits Palin was the one that made the differece.

bw222 on February 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM

Second look at Huck as sacrificial lamb?

Sure, but only as long as he doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning. (ducks & runs for cover)

RD on February 27, 2009 at 10:21 PM

If Huck is the nominee I write in Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin again like I did this past November when I had John McCain stuffed down my throat. I will not vote for him.

I want to go down swinging on ideas than put up yet another Dhimmmi lite. I can do this for the rest of my life. Either the Republican party actually nominates a Republican or I write in a conscience vote.

Specter and Snowe and Collins all have (R) next their names and look where it has gotten us. We have a nearly $800 billion stimulus bill that spends boatloads of money on nothing. How do those 3 help advance the Republican agenda? Run real Republicans or count me out every time November rolls around.

SimplyKimberly on February 27, 2009 at 10:23 PM

getalife on February 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM

@getalife: For once I totally agree with you.

@Atlanta Voter: I’m still waiting. I’ll be quite surprised if you can string together an actual response other than “because I said so”.

Snowed In on February 27, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Please go to 2012obama.com and take a poll of a projected contest between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama.

As i write this Sarah is at 71% Obama 29%.

technopeasant on February 27, 2009 at 10:37 PM

I believe that Obama will be wounded going into 2012 and Huckabee will be the best candidate to beat him.

1. People will be sick of Washington and Huckabee is a Washington outsider. He will be someone coming from main street to represent the people. He knows how to stand up for the hard-working American. He has adamently been against the bailouts and the stimulus.

2. Huckabee is for total tax reform. A very refreshing change from the Obama plan.

3. He has eleven years of executive experience bringing a state with an extreme deficit into a surplus by the time he left office. We will need this with the deficit Obama is bringing on us.

4. He is a dynamic speaker and will make Obama look like a third-grader in debates. He will be the best messenger for the GOP’s message.

5. He will not alienate the moderates, independents, and conservative Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008 but will be disappointed in him in 2012. They would vote for Huckabee.

Iowans Rock on February 27, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Those of you who complain about libs drinking the Obama koolaid, I suggest you look at yourselves and ask what have you been drinking? Koolaid comes in all different flavors, and those of you who just spew campaign talking points may not have the blue koolaid, but you have certainly drunk the cherry koolaid. Stop taking people’s word for things and look them up at the source without your mind already made up. We are tearing each other up based on hearsay. Please get the facts straight.

bmk2307 on February 27, 2009 at 11:01 PM

ernesto on February 27, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Ernesto, thanks for your reply, you bring up a lot of good points. I am glad we can have a good discussion without name calling and insults. Even though we might differ on who we prefer for 2012 and other political topics, we can still be courteous to each other.

People like “Benny Shaker”, “Capitulus” and “Atlanta Voter” however are a different story. They bring absoulutely no value to this site, I wish Allahpundit would realize that.

Norwegian on February 27, 2009 at 11:16 PM

iowans, I live in iowa too and I am TOTALLY embarrassed that I voted for huck in the 2008 primary. Sarah will CRUSH him in iowa if she runs. Her people have been setting up things in iowa over the past few months.

ousoonerfan15 on February 27, 2009 at 11:29 PM

I stayed home – mostly because Palin was on the ticket.

Atlanta Voter on February 27, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Enjoy your tax rates over the next four years, Ms. Parker.

Kent18 on February 28, 2009 at 12:10 AM

1. Before Palin came aboard, McCain was only able to attract crowds of 500 or less and was just about out of money. Palin brought crowds, contributions and volunteers.

bw222 on February 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM

Not one longtime conservative voter of my acquaintance — not one, mind you — was donating cash or volunteering time and energy to McCain’s lukewarm, lackadaisical campaign, prior to the addition of Sarah to the ticket.

Post-Palin, in direct comparison: great, re-energized and newly enthused swarms of them stampeded to do so.

God alone knows that the absolute last thing a radically diminished and (for all practical intents and purposes) powerless GOP really needs is someone like THAT anywhere on the national ticket versus the hyper-popular Obama, come ’12! /sarc

Kent18 on February 28, 2009 at 12:30 AM

Howdy y’all. This is my first comment on this blog. I’ve been lurking for a while. I think we are all giving this Obama character too much credit. Although I am from Texas, I was looking at the results from Ohio in 2004 and 2008. In 2004 Bush got roughly 2.85 million votes and Kerry got 2.75 million. In 2008, Obama got 2.7 million votes and McCain got 2.5 million. What does this mean for us? McCain couldn’t bring in the Bush voters. Many voters clearly stayed home because the total number of votes went down. If we could get all the people who voted for Bush in 2004 to vote for us in 2012, we beat Obama and pick up Ohio’s electoral votes. We don’t need to convert any Obama voters into Republicans or conservatives to win. Which one of our candidates could do that? My bet is on Sarah but I suppose there are some others who could do that too.

As an aside, that Benny Shakar feller, as his name implies, is either a stinky Bedouin (that’s what his name means) or a stinky Bedouin wannabe. Probably a Lawrence of Arabia fan or something. Probably Anti-Israel too. An understanding of his name makes it easy to understand the source of his diatribes.

bravecowboy on February 28, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Well, I’m all in for Huckabee, but if he doesn’t run and Palin wins the nomination, she’d be wise to pick Huck for VP. He’s instantly sew up the south and allow both of them to spend all of their time in the battle-ground states. That should give them the victory. After 8 years of President Palin, we could have 8 years of President Huckabee.

If Huck does decide to run in 2012 though, he would be the best selection. He has the most experience as a Governor, he’d make Obama look silly in debates (McCain lost in the debates), and he’d implement actual conservative policies such as stopping government overspending, implement the FairTax, and implement the Human Life Amendment.

I just can’t WAIT to see Huckabee and Obama debate the 2nd Amendment!

Whoever was still saying that they had a problem with Huck over illegal immigrants’ education and the Wayne Dumond issue…please look into it further…Huckabee made it clear that AS GOVERNOR OF A STATE, who couldn’t get the Federal Government to do their job right, he was already forced to allow the illegal immigrants’ “anchor-baby” children to attend his state public schools, despite the fact that he’d prefer deportation of the parents. He had only suggested that it made sense that these children be qualified for the same scholarships that their peers were qualified for, given the fact that they could not be deported with their parents. Wayne Dumond was released by a group of Democrat parole board members who were ALL appointed by Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker. Only 2 of them made the wild accusation that Huckabee somehow pressured them into releasing this guy (who had also had his testicles cut off with a pair of scissors during a breaking-and-entering incident while he was awaiting trial and his testicles ended up in a jar on the county sheriff’s desk). Now, if you really believe that a newly-elected Republican Governor is going to successfully pressure a room-full of Arkansas Democrat parole board members, then you really should vote for Huckabee, because he’s an awfully powerful man who could magically get the Dems to take actions that they don’t want to take.

DFCSTech on February 28, 2009 at 1:39 AM

DFCSTech on February 28, 2009 at 1:39 AM

How can you say Huck would “sew up the south” when he didn’t win the GOP primary in most Southern states this time around? I’m not sure which states you’re counting as southern, but he didn’t win AZ,NM,TX,OK, MS, Fl, SC, NC, VA, or KY.

I’m originally from the South, and am an evangelical Christian. I voted for Thompson in the caucuses, and Palin is at the top of my list right now.

Huck turns me off because I think he’s insincere, appears to want to attack others (for examples, see the Mormon issue, attack ad he “didn’t air” but showed to reporters, etc.), and seems to use his faith as a crutch to gain support (the “cross/bookshelf” ad). I think he talks a good conservative game, but I don’t trust him to follow through.

cs89 on February 28, 2009 at 2:37 AM

Huckabee wants to tax fast food.

If he does that, I want him gone.

Palin or Jindal 2012. That’s all, that’s it, anyone else will be uncivilized.

And Atlanta Voter can go get him/her/itself stabbed in the street.

Sakaki on February 28, 2009 at 3:05 AM

Exit question: Think with me here for a minute. If The One gets the economy on track by 2011 and it looks like he’s waltzing towards reelection, wouldn’t Huckabee actually be a good pick for the nomination?

I doubt Christians will be here by 2012, which changes everything about this question. There’s a good chance the world will have entered into the 7 year Tribulation period by 2012, but in the event Christians are still here, Huckabee is the GOP’s most exciting candidate unless another God-fearing, pro-life, pro-gun rights, less taxes, securing the borders, fighting terrorism, etc., etc. kinda candidate comes along. I say the sooner we get Huck in a debate with Obama, the better. Don’t wait.

Granted, he’s white, southern, and evangelical, none of which screams “big tent,”

I think where people go wrong with this kind of philosophy, that being a white, southern, Christian, is a drawback in national politics (won’t attract enough people). I think where they’re wrong is if you look back to the 2004 election the liberal media did everything they could against (Christian, so-called) President Bush in his re-election. They used all kinds of attacks and it didn’t work. So who’s to say it’s gonna work with Huckabee. If there is a Huckabee matchup with Obama who’s to say it will work that time around. The more the MSM beats the anti-Christian drum, the more the Christian vote turns out. That’s what 2004 proved! That was the greatest turnout in this nations history in votes one both sides of the fence!! So I would encourage people to try and change their mind on this. The more the mainstream news media are anti-Christian the more the Christian right will turn out, and they will rally around Huckabee. There is a golden opportunity here.

but he’s also charming, media savvy, good on race, and comfortable with middle-class economic messaging in a way that Romney, say, isn’t.

You betcha.

apacalyps on February 28, 2009 at 3:40 AM

OK – I got all the way through page 1 and not one commenter picked up on AP’s “neck and neck” joke. I guess the GOP really is the party of Kenneth the Page.

rhodeymark on February 28, 2009 at 8:15 AM

Some of you don’t like Huckabee’s “populist” image. Then why do you like Sarah Palin.

VFT on February 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM

Quite simple: Huckabee has taxed the hell out of his constituents; Palin has not. Moreover, their “populist” messages are totally different. Huckabee’s message totally turns me off – attacks on the successful. Palin’s attacks are on the elitists (mind you, not the elite, but the elitists).

Also, Huckabee’s thinly veiled religious attacks on Romney were unacceptable.

besser tot als rot on February 28, 2009 at 10:52 AM

I see Palin as a western conservative – a conservative in her personal life, but a libertarian in governance. Huckabee is an authoritarian big government conservative like George Bush.

besser tot als rot on February 28, 2009 at 10:56 AM

That I believe is the key to Sarah’s candidacy: whether she can convince voters that she is a libertarian and not a religious wacko.

technopeasant on February 28, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Must be jealous of Palin and hate your country.

This is the exact bullshit I was talking about.

Anyone who doesn’t think Sarah Palin is the Republicans savior is automatically labeled with intellectually lazy insults.

Jealous? Because they didn’t vote for her? Hate their country?

Are you serious?

Save your tripe for another blog.

You-Eh-Vee on February 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Madame President Sarah Palin 2013-2021

alexraye on February 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Jealous? Because they didn’t vote for her? Hate their country?

Are you serious?

You-Eh-Vee on February 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM

My guess would be: No. Get a grip.

besser tot als rot on February 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM

OK – I got all the way through page 1 and not one commenter picked up on AP’s “neck and neck” joke. I guess the GOP really is the party of Kenneth the Page.

rhodeymark on February 28, 2009 at 8:15 AM

????

Care to enlighten this conservative rube?

cs89 on February 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Care to enlighten this conservative rube?

cs89 on February 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Hint: the caption goes with the picture.

Stating the obvious: Gov. Palin’s got an attractive neck.

sulla on February 28, 2009 at 4:16 PM

And, to offer rhodeymark some delayed gratification:

with a caption like that, it’s a shame the poll didn’t show a close race between Palin and Ann Coulter.

There’s a choice delicious enough to make a vampire faint.

/chauvanist

sulla on February 28, 2009 at 4:24 PM

sulla on February 28, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Thanks. From where I sit, “neck and neck” is just a common term for a close race.

Whatever.

cs89 on February 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM

cs89 on February 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Yeah, that’s why I didn’t bother commenting on it earlier. Palin’s popularity is about more than just her looks, but her UNpopularity seems overly focused on that very thing.

Michael Steele makes RNC chair, Colbert challenges him to a rap-off; Gov. Palin get the VP nod and Andi Sullivan suddenly can’t stop thinking about vajayjay.

And conservatives are supposedly the racists/sexists. Right.

sulla on February 28, 2009 at 5:50 PM

LMAO-PopTech isn’t going to like this one little bit.

:-)

-Dave

Dave R. on February 28, 2009 at 10:08 PM

PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS THAT BARACK OBAMA REFUSES TO RELEASE -. OBAMA’S SECRECY AND “CLOSED RECORDS” POLICY
Indonesian Passport – Not released
Application for U.S. Citizenship (as former citizen of Indonesia) – Not released
Immigration Records – Not released
Original Vault Copy Birth Certificate – Not released
Certificate of Live Birth – Counterfeit Version on Obama Web Site
Obama / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro Adoption Records – Not Released
Fransiskus Assisi School Application – Not released
Punahou School Records – Not released
Selective Service Registration – Counterfeit version generated
Occidental College records – Not released
Columbia College Records – Not released
Columbia Thesis – Not released
Harvard College Records – Not released
Baptism Certificate – None
Medical Records – Not released
Illinois State Senate Records – Not released
Law Practice Client List – Not released
University of Chicago Scholarly Articles – None ../,./

searcher484 on February 28, 2009 at 10:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4