Rasmussen: Huckabee 29, Romney 24, Palin 18

posted at 4:29 pm on October 16, 2009 by Allahpundit

In July it was Romney 25, Palin 24, Huck 22.

Then again, Rudy Giuliani once pulled something like 45 percent before last year’s primaries. Perspective.

These numbers reflect an improvement for Huckabee since July when the three candidates were virtually even. Huckabee’s gain appears to be Palin’s loss as Romney’s support has barely changed.

The numbers for Huckabee and Romney look even stronger when GOP voters were asked which candidate they would least like to see get the nomination. Pawlenty came on top in that category with 28%. Palin was second at 21% while 20% named Gingrich. Romney and Huckabee were in the single digits with 9% and 8% respectively…

Romney leads all prospects among voters who attend church once a month or less. Huckabee leads among more frequent churchgoers. Huckabee holds a huge lead among Evangelical Christians with Palin in second and Romney a distant third.

The person Republicans would least like to see win the nomination is … Tim Pawlenty? I thought the rap on T-Paw, at least for the moment, is that he didn’t inspire strong feelings one way or another. As for Sarahcuda, on the same day that he took the July poll, Rasmussen ran another one asking if her decision to resign would help or hurt her presidential ambitions. The split was 24/40 — and yet she was still ahead of Huckabee at the time. If it’s not her resignation that’s hurting her now, as I speculated this morning, what is? Too much Levi Johnston freak show collateral damage, maybe? I don’t think most people even know who he is.

Not to worry, says Matt Latimer. Authenticity shall triumph in the end:

Palin isn’t going away (at least not yet) because in her own way she represents what Barack Obama represented for many Democrats: someone who stands apart from the corrupt and cynical Washington system that has let true believers down. Republicans remember that Palin stood up against the crooked Republican establishment in Alaska—while out-of touch GOP senators in Washington actually applauded Alaska’s crony-in-chief, Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens, after he was booted out of office amid scandal. (The charges against Stevens were eventually dropped.)

The rank-and-file are tired of the bland phonies running the GOP. They are tired of Republican compromises that bloated spending and expanded the federal government. And they feel helpless against a team of buddies running each campaign more cynically than the last. GOP voters just might be ready to burn their village down in order to save it. You can almost hear the line now. What’s the difference between a hockey mom and Robespierre? Lipstick.

If the grand pooh-bahs of the GOP think they can find someone to push her aside, their pickings seem drearily slim. Version 2.0 of the governor affectionately known in some circles as “Mitt Rom-bot” is currently under construction. It will probably function just as lamely as the last. Poor Governor Romney. Every move the Mittster makes looks like it has first been diagrammed in a PowerPoint presentation. When commentators noted that even his hair looked too perfect, his aides mussed it up. It ended up looking perfectly disheveled. We’ve had enough inauthenticity for a while.

We’ve had enough ideological inauthenticity, but using the degree of dishevelment of Mitt Romney’s hair to measure that isn’t really a game I want to play. Palin and Huckabee might be the most personally authentic, salt-of-the-earth candidates of the bunch, but does that necessarily mean they’re less likely to get rolled by Democrats if elected? Because that’s all I care about. If Mitt can get jobs growing again between trips to the country club, good enough. Personal authenticity can be useful as a proxy for ideological authenticity, but ultimately it’s only the latter that’s important. Sometimes it feels like that’s a minority position these days.

Let’s poll this one. I’m curious to see, just for a goof, how La Liz does in the mix.



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 4 5 6

Warhorse_03826,

Mike Huckabee was and is a very strong 2nd amendment supporter.

The Question:

I really like your very courteous way of asking questions. I don’t think anybody can really “know” how somebody would be as President…look at Obama. Only thing is that everything he has done, he said he would do in the primaries, but the stars were in most people’s eyes, and they just didn’t listen to him..they just followed him like the Pied Piper. I do know that Mike Huckabee believes in the Conservative values of limited government, low taxes and making sure illegals are made legal before they get our benefits. But, he is a populist. For a long time I wondered what that meant. From what I gather listening to other Conservatives, it means Mike Huckabee cares too much for the poor people. He wants to help them. He said one time that the Liberatians believe so much in small government that they would leave their grandmother dying on the street rather than have the government help her. MH believes in small government, but he also sees where there are times we need to help people who desperately need our help. So nothing is so black and white that you can say we ALWAYS should have small govt. He signed a health program for the poorest children in Arkansas (which there were a lot). Does that make him a big govt person, I don’t think so, maybe you would. As far as governing for the U.S. as President, I am very confident he would be very fair and look at all the possible ways to make things happen within the guidelines of the Conservative Party…tax cuts, etc. But, he would be the President for all the people, the rich, the middle class and the poor because he grew up poor and governed in a very poor state. That makes him very knowledgeable about what most people in this country need.

Some people have said he was using class warfare against Romney. I didn’t know what that meant until they gave an example of Huckabee saying to his voters, “Would you rather have a President who is like you or somebody who would lay you off?” Mike Huckabee was using his biggest asset, being poor and understanding their plight to sell himself. This wasn’t meant to put Romney down as a person,but to contrast both of them. He wasn’t pandering, he was telling the truth. Unfortunately,some people on this site think that was showing his jealousy for Romney’s wealth. I don’t believe that — he just wanted to show them he could relate to them. I really and sincerely believe Mike Huckabee would be an excellent President because of his background in life, his common sense approach to problems and being a kind and likeable person. I don’t believe he would force his religion on people as President. Obviously if the people of Arkansas voted him in office twice, they must have like the way he governed! I believe Sarah Palin would be a good President for the same reasons, but talking to lots of people,they are either biased against a woman President or they do believe the MSM absurd description of her as stupid. I don’t believe her quitting as Gov. of Alaska will help with that perception either. Maybe by 2016, most people will have forgotten.

VFT on October 17, 2009 at 10:57 PM

This is all irrelevant…Palin/Cheney 2012
Redefining what is Politically Correct…What side of History will you be on…

jerrytbg on October 17, 2009 at 6:49 PM

This ticket would be on the losing side. Obama would defy the odds and win reelection with 12% unemployment and a huge deficit. Talk about a gift – go ahead with this lineup.
Sara is not the chosen one – people just need to take of the rose colored glasses.

Bradky on October 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Well, then Obama is going to win no matter what candidate the GOP puts up against him. With Palin, at least we’d be running a conservative.

Huck lost me when he pulled that press conference stunt with the non-commercial. What an a-hole. I’m absolutely sure he’s capable of more of that shenanigans in the future. Not to mention his spotty record as Gov.

Dongemaharu on October 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM

TheQuestion,

It’s not the same governing as President with a very rich country as it was to govern in Arkansas who had very little. People on here say Huckabee was a bigger spender than Clinton…Well,yes, Clinton didn’t do anything to help the people in Arkansas. He was the Democratic Gov.who left Arkansas in such a mess when Huckabee was made Gov. No wonder Clinton’s spending was lower. You see how they take a statistic like this one with Bill Clinton and try to use it against Huckabee? Clinton didn’t help Arkansas and Mike Huckabee did, DAH!

You wouldn’t have to worry about Huckabee governing like a Conservative…he would want to win a 2nd term too and have the Conservative voters supporting him. Mike Huckabee has strong principles and has never stopped living by them even when he governed a Democratic state. That’s one of the reasons he doesn’t like Mitt Romney. He said one time that he could not imagine going from state to state to campaign and having to wake up to his campaign adviser to tell him what he needed to say to get their votes. That’s called pandering, and Mike Huckabee is very authentic. That’s another thing MH and Sarah Palin have in commone, they say what they mean and mean what they say. Mike Huckabee has always been like this…you can trust he will still believe when he gets in office the same principles and values he has always had.

VFT on October 17, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Janos Hunyadi on October 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Playing devil’s advocate who doesn’t know Sarah Palin?

I think Huckabee’s rise is simply a result of Sarah losing some support among evangelicals because:

1)her resignation

2)being in the shadows and not being prominent in public or on TV

3) not sure if she will run for POTUS or not

#2 at least will be solved by the end of the year which is a good start.

technopeasant on October 17, 2009 at 11:22 PM

So Palin polls 65% and Huckabee polls 8% in the above poll.

Rasmussen calls it 29% Huckabee, 18% Palin.

This is what the academics or elites call cognitive dissonance.

By the way even though it is an internet poll anybody who polls 65% cannot be discounted.

technopeasant on October 17, 2009 at 11:28 PM

Technopeasant,

Mike Huckabee was around during the 2008 primaries when he had a lot of the Evangelical vote…long before Sarah Palin was on the scene.

Mike Huckabee was the closest Republican in the PPP poll to beating Obama, and in one or two of those polls, he had the highest Independent and Democrat voters. Yes, MH could have gotten some of Sarah’s Evangelical vote, but he certainly didn’t STEAL them like some on this website mentioned.

Yes, it is impressive that Sarah polled so high in this website’s poll, but what did you expect on a Hot Air, Sarah Palin website?? When she polls higher than all of the other candidates on the professional polling sites, then you know her numbers have indeed improved. I’m sure they will when her book comes out.

VFT on October 17, 2009 at 11:56 PM

WWWWWWWWWWWWTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!

dmann on October 18, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Gov. Palin is at it again.

Good Intentions Aren’t Enough with Health Care Reform
Today at 8:57pm
Now that the Senate Finance Committee has approved its health care bill, it’s a good time to step back and take a look at the long term consequences should its provisions be enacted into law.

The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums. [1] It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.

However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.

Those driving this plan no doubt have good intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough. There were good intentions behind the drive to increase home ownership for lower-income Americans, but forcing financial institutions to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them had terrible unintended consequences. We all felt those consequences during the financial collapse last year. Unintended consequences always result from top-down big government plans like the current health care proposals, and we can’t afford to ignore that fact again.

Supposedly the Senate Finance bill will be paid for by cutting Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and by taxing the so-called “Cadillac” health care plans enjoyed by many union members. The plan will also impose heavy taxes on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and clinical labs. [3] The result of all of these taxes is clear. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted in the Wall Street Journal, these new taxes “will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.” [4] Unfortunately, it will lead to lower wages too, as employees will have to sacrifice a greater percentage of their paychecks to cover these higher premiums. [5] In other words, if the Democrats succeed in overhauling health care, we’ll all bear the costs. The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest. [6]

With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” [7] But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. [8] Last month, our employment rate was 9.8%, the highest it’s been in 26 years. [9] At first the current administration promised that the stimulus would save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. [10] Then they declared that it created 1 million jobs, but the stimulus reports released this week showed that a mere 30,083 jobs have been created, while nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. [11] Should we believe the administration’s claims about health care when their promises have proven so unreliable about the stimulus?

In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists. In fact, he committed to “broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists…” [12] However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists. [13] Yesterday, POLITICO reported that aides to President Obama and Democrat Senator Max Baucus met with corporate lobbyists in April to help “set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.” [14] Needless to say, their negotiations were not broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see.

Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he would not “sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.” [15] PolitiFact reports that this promise has already been broken three times by the current administration. [16] We can only hope that it won’t be broken again with health care reform.

All of this certainly gives the appearance of politics-as-usual in Washington with no change in sight.

Americans want health care reform because we want affordable health care. We don’t need subsidies or a public option. We don’t need a nationalized health care industry. We need to reduce health care costs. But the Senate Finance plan will dramatically increase those costs, all the while ignoring common sense cost-saving measures like tort reform. Though a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill. [17]

Here’s a novel idea. Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market. Instead of going to war with certain private sector companies, let’s embrace real private-sector competition and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. Instead of taxing the so-called “Cadillac” plans that people get through their employers, let’s give individuals who purchase their own health care the same tax benefits we currently give employer-provided health care recipients. Instead of crippling Medicare, let’s reform it by providing recipients with vouchers so that they can purchase their own coverage.

Now is the time to make your voices heard before it’s too late. If we don’t fight for the market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven reform plan that we deserve, we’ll be left with the disastrous unintended consequences of the plans currently being cooked up in Washington.

- Sarah Palin

Footnotes at link.
http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=app_2347471856&ref=mf

Clyde5445 on October 18, 2009 at 12:30 AM

I’ll say it again… I’m a HUGE Mitt fan, so….

Mitt Romney/Liz Cheney 2012

Snicker_Snort on October 18, 2009 at 12:30 AM

And you are a real threat to free speech.

apacalyps on October 17, 2009 at 9:11 PM

I command you to be silent!

Bwahahahahahahaa!!!

csdeven on October 18, 2009 at 12:34 AM

I dislike Huck ever since I heard his remark about how he shuts up folk complaining about illegal immigration. He would ask them if they ever lost a job to one. Huck has said he has never met a man who lost a job to an illegal. The shallowness of that remark was out and out proof the man is limited or has blinders, either of which we do not need in a President.***

One of the huckster’s biggest campaign donors in Arkansas (while he was the governor) was TYSON FOODS – the biggest illegal alien employer in Arkansas. The huckster was also instrumental in helping get a Mexican Consulate office located in Arkansas. Hmmmm…..I wonder why????The huckster is just THAT – a huckster!

He’s a phoney and a liar, too. I don’t look at him as a ‘pastor’, but as a greedy, hypocritcal opportunist! Just do a YAHOO search on the gov-nah; there’s a lot of underhanded, unethical stuff he did while in office.

He quit the preachin’ business to become a politician and then a tv talk show host??? Sounds to me like he likes fame, fortune and power…not very ‘preacherly’ if I do say so myself :)

brendy on October 18, 2009 at 12:45 AM

VFT on October 17, 2009 at 11:08 PM

***

Sorry to disagree with you, VFT. Just do a YAHOO search on your ‘great’ huckster…err, Huckabee. Huckabee is a snake in the grass hypocrite who will stop at nothing to get his sneaky, hurtful ‘attacks’ in on his opponents – ESPECIALLY Romney, because he’s JEALOUS of him; good looks, good build, WEALTH, nice looking wife and family…

Huckabee was just a crooked politician as any of ‘em while he was in office. Just do a search on him.

brendy on October 18, 2009 at 12:52 AM

Liz Cheney 13% (504 votes)
Huckabee 8% (321 votes)
Palin 65% (2,579 votes)
Pawlenty 4% (147 votes)
Romney 11% (422 votes)
Total Votes: 3,973

ROTFLMBO! Ya better watch your step, Allah. No one is irreplacable. ;o)

DannoJyd on October 18, 2009 at 1:20 AM

why is this so much about religion? we need some clear-cut, level-headed conservative values without BS… mormon, christian or otherwise.

thedude on October 17, 2009 at 7:56 PM

I agree with you 100%. I’ll repeat a part of what I said earlier on this thread:

I don’t care if the 2012 GOP candidate is Bhuddist, Jewish, Christian, LDS, Hindu, B’hai or any other religion.

Why is everyone so obsessed with Huckabee’s or Mitt’s faith or any other politician’s faith!? I don’t get it.

I just want them to fix the economy, lower taxes, reduce the size of government and kick terrorist ass. Is that too hard to ask from a politician!?

Conservative Samizdat on October 16, 2009 at 7:54 PM

Conservative Samizdat on October 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM

VFT on October 17, 2009 at 11:56 PM

HOT AIR, SARAH PALIN’S WEBSITE

COMMENTS:

1)First off let me be clear I observe the 11th commandment; I will not attack Governor Huckabee personally. If I mention Governor Huckabee it will be in reference to political matters especially in respect to his support

2)To suggest that HA is Sarah Palin’s web site is ludicrous. I invite you to go back over the last 10 months since the beginning of the year and re-read the header posts by AP and you will find that the greater majority of them (including pictures of Sarah Palin) are inflammatory, demeaning, sarcastic, mocking, misogynistic, elitist, slanted, or a gross misinterpretation of the facts.

If you took a poll of 100 Palin supporters I would venture to say 90% would take the same position that I have regarding HA and AP

3)And back to my point in #1; Huckabee for months has polled worfully low in the greater majority of internet polls. In the Rasmussen poll it clearly shows that Sarah Palin leads in voting intentions over Huckabee and Romney in people under the age of 40. Another example of AP slanting the facts. You might ask why is it important that Huckabee do better on Internet polls. Well quite simply, if his supporters do not come out of the woodwork to contribute to these polls first it may lead some to convey the narrative that Huckabee’s supporters are not into high-tech and backward but more importantly for Huckabee it may lead to a growing opinion that he cannot appeal to a wider high-tech savvy audience under 40 which he will need to make inroads in if he is to win a general election against the very high-tech savvy Obama.

I have said elsewhere that Huckabee could win the GOP nomination in 2012 but what good is it if he cannot win a general election.

If in subsequent internet polls Huckabee’s supporters come out of the woodwork and prove to me that they are a significant force I will retract my assertions. But until then I am going to assume his numbers are inflated and do not completely reflect reality.

Being touted as a front runner and only polling 8% in an internet poll on a conservative or right-of-center web site and trailing Liz Cheney who is not even running is abyssmal.

And please don’t give me the line that his supporters didn’t know about the poll.

I just didn’t get off the bus.

technopeasant on October 18, 2009 at 4:57 AM

Watch Sarah’s poll numbers rise dramatically when she is touring the country promoting her book.

slp on October 18, 2009 at 5:03 AM

SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SARGE, IT’S CUDA’S SURGE!
SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SARGE, IT’S CUDA’S SURGE!
SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SARGE, IT’S CUDA’S SURGE!
SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SARGE, IT’S CUDA’S SURGE!
SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SARGE, IT’S CUDA’S SURGE!
SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SARGE, IT’S CUDA’S SURGE!
SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SARGE, IT’S CUDA’S SURGE!
SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SURGE! SARGE, IT’S CUDA’S SURGE!

SARGE SAID: BUT CAN’T SEE CUDA ON TV? HOW CAN IT BE A SURGE?

TheAlamos on October 18, 2009 at 5:05 AM

Over at race42008.com Dave G made a ridiculous header post comment that “I think it’s clear that Mitt or Huck will be the nominee, absent a leap into the race of some unidentified superstar who would clear the field and take the nod.”

I wrote that’s like predicting who will be the 2 finalists in the 2012 Super Bowl (2011 season)two years ahead of time.

Let me be consistent. Just because I am questioning Huckabee’s frontrunner status due to his woeful presence in the greater majority of internet polls does not mean that I am discounting him or throwing him under the bus. Quite the contrary. I have maintained for several months that one of the top 3 Huckabee, Romney or Palin would win the nomination in 2012.

To discount Palin based on one poll is sheer foolishness. It would be like spotting an opposing team a 10 point lead by the midway mark of the first quarter and then claiming there is no way the team in arrears could come back and become competitive and prevail at the end of the game. For you football aficionados you know that is true.

As slp has noted once Sarah travels the country promoting her book her numbers should move up if not appreciably at least gradually. If they do not, I will admit then that perhaps Huckabee and Romney are stronger than I thought.

Nobody that has close to 1m Facebook members and and a committed grassroots presence can be counted out. And if that person also wins Internet polls going away, then yes that person is definitely a first-tier candidate.

To deny Sarah Palin is a first-tier candidate is to deny reality. If conservatives and Republicans pride ourselves in anything it is that we are rational thinkers who do not habitually hide our heads in the sand or allow ourselves to be subject to groupthink as Obamatrons obviously are.

technopeasant on October 18, 2009 at 5:28 AM

I feel like I’m standing in the only grocery store in town.
I’m in the meat department and there’s only a few pieces of meat. (sorry for the analogy) The butcher keeps telling me that Palin cut, although nice and red with little fat, is too tough and I wouldn’t want it.

But he keeps suggesting the other cuts of meat, Huck, Mitt, Pawl, Jind, that all appear grayish and seem less than fresh, especially the Huck & Mitt cuts, that he keeps taking in the back room to re-wrap, every time I comment on their appearance, and bringing back out to me to buy.

Jeff from WI on October 18, 2009 at 5:37 AM

Having talked about Huckabee, I want to turn my attention to Romney and the huge discrepancy that exists between the Rasmussen poll and the PPP monthly poll.

For the last 3 monthly polls (July, August, Sept)PPP has shown Romney’s favorables among Republicans as 54, 52, and 50 actually losing support among Republicans and now Rasmussen shows his favorables among GOP supporters at 78.

This is just too big of a discrepancy for me to bridge. In addition in the three PPP polls they all showed Sarah Palin with an average 20 point lead in favorables among Republicans over Romney and now I am supposed to believe in a period of one month that Romney is now 3 points ahead of Palin. I’m not buying it

Having said that it will be interesting next week when PPP releases its monthly poll and what number they have for Romney’s favorables among Republicans. If Romney has even moved up to 65 there I will concede that he is making up ground but if the number is still in the 50′s I will highly question Rasmussen’s assertion that Romney is favored by 3/4 of the Republican party.

technopeasant on October 18, 2009 at 5:40 AM

Jeff from WI on October 18, 2009 at 5:37 AM

It’s like the butcher doesn’t want you to trust your own eyes or instincts, that he feels you’re not capable of making a rational decision based on what you have witnessed or personally investigated.

The butcher is the GOP brain trust and establishment and frankly no matter how many ways it wants to package Romney, Huckabee or Pawlenty to Palin supporters they will never be as tasty or nourishing as Sarah Palin is.

Why is Sarah Palin dangerous? Because her supporters will never abandon her regardless of the polls, the propaganda of the MSM, scurrilous attacks by the Far Left, mockery and caricatures congered up by liberal entertainers and the snickering of academics or political pundits who think that Sarah is an unsophisticated lowbrow and only worthy of their disdain and resentment.

Sarah will not give up in her quest to restore America to its previous greatness. In turn we will never give up on her either. If we die, we die!

technopeasant on October 18, 2009 at 5:50 AM

technopeasant on October 18, 2009 at 5:50 AM

I no longer trust the GOP butcher.I too will be purchasing the Palin cut if given the opportunity on ’12

Jeff from WI on October 18, 2009 at 6:00 AM

Techno and Jeff……

Sarah’s problem is not conservative support. She has that. The problem is the independents. She MUST figure out a way to bring them around. It does us no good to nominate Sarah just to watch her crash and burn against Obama if she cannot get the moderates.

She has three years to get on their good side. She has to deal with the issue of her quitting the Governorship, the appearance that she is a vapid twit, and well, I think that’s about it on the major issues. But she has to get media support also. But they wont support her willingly. She must figure out a way to make disparaging her worse for their image. This is why they support Obama. Besides being leftist scum themselves, the media doesn’t want to be seen as weakening Obama for fear of being called racist etc. She must get the indies first and then hope the media doesn’t do what that hack Katie Couric did and edit her interviews to make her look stupid. Sarah really needs some world class advisers.

csdeven on October 18, 2009 at 8:22 AM

Quite a battle you ‘conservatives’ have here! The rube from Mayberry is outpolling the slick Scientologist (praise Xenu) AND that idiot woman. Such a formidable crowd!

simplesimon on October 18, 2009 at 8:31 AM

Yes, she needs advisers. But as far as the Independents are concerned, since they have no core principles, they vote like children for the shiniest toy. Obama was that shiny toy, but he’s quickly becoming tarnished. So Palin may look good to them versus the Communist they helped get elected.
Remember, Independents don’t like to think too hard, it hurts their brain, so unfortunately Palin will have to come up with something vapid like “Hope & Change, and Yes We Can” to amuse the idiot Independents.

Jeff from WI on October 18, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Quite a battle you ‘conservatives’ have here! The rube from Mayberry is outpolling the slick Scientologist (praise Xenu) AND that idiot woman. Such a formidable crowd!

simplesimon on October 18, 2009 at 8:31 AM

You have your own problems. For instance, how do you fool people a second time that Obama isn’t just an incompetent Marxist traitor to America. They wont be fooled again.

csdeven on October 18, 2009 at 9:11 AM

unfortunately Palin will have to come up with something vapid like “Hope & Change, and Yes We Can” to amuse the idiot Independents.

Jeff from WI on October 18, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Agreed. Good advisers will help her do that. I have confidence that whatever they come up with will satisfy the dopes, but it’ll be something she can honor. Unlike Obama’s Hopey/Changy lie. He had no intention of changing America into what he promised. That’s the difference between the Godless Marxist and conservatives. We lay out a path for positive change for America and then follow through with it and they say whatever it takes to gain power over American citizens.

csdeven on October 18, 2009 at 9:16 AM

I think with regards to independents you have to take a nuanced approach to bringing certains segments into her tent. That would include conservative independents, libertarians and fiscal conservatives-social moderate types.

There are other segments which she will IMHO will not be attractive to including anti-war types who believe in growing government and intervening more in American life. And of course ardent pro-choicers and those secular types who are wary of people of faith will probably be not drawn to her either.

technopeasant on October 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Regarding advisors Fred Thompson make a cogent remark several months ago: “When she calls there will be hundreds that would be willing to flock to Alaska to work for her.”

technopeasant on October 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM

I think Fred! would be a great adviser for her in the terms of delivering a message. He should have nothing to do with motivating her.

csdeven on October 18, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Why is it that I don’t believe this poll in particular? Nothing against Rasmussen, of course, I don’t believe in particular that Huckabee is presidential material–he raised taxes in Arkansas and there are very sour grapes there still. It is ClintonLand.

To put it in perspective, a relative of mine that went thru his governorship dislikes him so much that she said that “he is not worth shaving her pug’s butt”. To put it mildly. I need a poll just in Arkansas see how people feel about him. Then we can have a better idea of the approval index in his home state.

Give me a mean-ass fast swimming-fish eater than a bass player for a president. With Sarah I feel safe; with Huckabee, I just wanna share a meal and host him in my place, spend the day eating, enjoy the kids have a good time.

With Sarah I wanna do all that, of course-my daughter is 5 and is getting ticked off b/c all she hears is Obama speaking on TV but Sarah has not spoken yet. (clue?) But as we can spend good time with the families, she can enjoy the outdoors, teach us a thing or two and at the same time, on both of her Crackberries, rule the world.

O/T question: Did Obama break the his rule of STAYING PUT in the WH during Afghanistan meetings?

ProudPalinFan on October 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Why is it that I don’t believe this poll in particular? Nothing against Rasmussen, of course, I don’t believe in particular that Huckabee is presidential material–he raised taxes in Arkansas and there are very sour grapes there still. It is ClintonLand.

ProudPalinFan on October 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Hey… stop revealing yourself too much. Change your moniker. We still don’t tell them yet whom our support will go by 2012.

Plus … don’t tell anything about Huck, T-Paw, Jindal, Barbour, Daniels, etc. … YET. Let’s see how the MSM will figure them out (i.e., will expose them) … LATER.

TheAlamos on October 18, 2009 at 10:46 AM

you are all missing the best VP candidate for Palin that would be a winner….it’s not Liz Cheney, although her future is bright.

It’s Condi Rice. Smart, experienced, former Sec of State, NSA, connected, female, black, young….

Palin/Rice 2012….that’s a winning ticket.

tatersalad on October 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM

If Huck is the best we can offer in 2012, then we’re as doomed as the Mayan’s predict.

DFCtomm on October 18, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Gov. Palin is at it again.

Good Intentions Aren’t Enough with Health Care Reform
Today at 8:57pm
Now that the Senate Finance Committee has approved its health care bill, it’s a good time to step back and take a look at the long term consequences should its provisions be enacted into law.

The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums. [1] It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.

However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.

Those driving this plan no doubt have good intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough. There were good intentions behind the drive to increase home ownership for lower-income Americans, but forcing financial institutions to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them had terrible unintended consequences. We all felt those consequences during the financial collapse last year. Unintended consequences always result from top-down big government plans like the current health care proposals, and we can’t afford to ignore that fact again.

Supposedly the Senate Finance bill will be paid for by cutting Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and by taxing the so-called “Cadillac” health care plans enjoyed by many union members. The plan will also impose heavy taxes on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and clinical labs. [3] The result of all of these taxes is clear. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted in the Wall Street Journal, these new taxes “will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.” [4] Unfortunately, it will lead to lower wages too, as employees will have to sacrifice a greater percentage of their paychecks to cover these higher premiums. [5] In other words, if the Democrats succeed in overhauling health care, we’ll all bear the costs. The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest. [6]

With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” [7] But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. [8] Last month, our employment rate was 9.8%, the highest it’s been in 26 years. [9] At first the current administration promised that the stimulus would save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. [10] Then they declared that it created 1 million jobs, but the stimulus reports released this week showed that a mere 30,083 jobs have been created, while nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. [11] Should we believe the administration’s claims about health care when their promises have proven so unreliable about the stimulus?

In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists. In fact, he committed to “broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists…” [12] However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists. [13] Yesterday, POLITICO reported that aides to President Obama and Democrat Senator Max Baucus met with corporate lobbyists in April to help “set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.” [14] Needless to say, their negotiations were not broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see.

Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he would not “sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.” [15] PolitiFact reports that this promise has already been broken three times by the current administration. [16] We can only hope that it won’t be broken again with health care reform.

All of this certainly gives the appearance of politics-as-usual in Washington with no change in sight.

Americans want health care reform because we want affordable health care. We don’t need subsidies or a public option. We don’t need a nationalized health care industry. We need to reduce health care costs. But the Senate Finance plan will dramatically increase those costs, all the while ignoring common sense cost-saving measures like tort reform. Though a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill. [17]

Here’s a novel idea. Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market. Instead of going to war with certain private sector companies, let’s embrace real private-sector competition and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. Instead of taxing the so-called “Cadillac” plans that people get through their employers, let’s give individuals who purchase their own health care the same tax benefits we currently give employer-provided health care recipients. Instead of crippling Medicare, let’s reform it by providing recipients with vouchers so that they can purchase their own coverage.

Now is the time to make your voices heard before it’s too late. If we don’t fight for the market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven reform plan that we deserve, we’ll be left with the disastrous unintended consequences of the plans currently being cooked up in Washington.

- Sarah Palin

Footnotes at link.
http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=app_2347471856&ref=mf

Clyde5445 on October 18, 2009 at 12:30 AM

But, but, but Huckuphony has a TV show, and plays the base, and cooks up squirrel in the popcorn popper, he, he’s Teh One!

That idiot is giving soft ball questions to “global warming” believers on his TV show last night, and Sarah Palin is talking serious policy!

If I need a good fried squirrel recipe, I’ll go see Huck. But if I want to talk to the next President of the United States, I’ll go to Alaska!

gary4205 on October 18, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Regarding advisors Fred Thompson make a cogent remark several months ago: “When she calls there will be hundreds that would be willing to flock to Alaska to work for her.”

technopeasant on October 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM

I hope she picks better advisors next time, if she runs, than the ones who told her to buy a fancy new wardrobe. I would have LOVED the Dims to criticize her for not having 30 years worth of expensive power suits.

Speedwagon82 on October 18, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Keep dreaming Allahpundit

xax on October 18, 2009 at 12:57 PM

you know, it’s us, all us who are opposed to Obama who better get their sh*t together and stop whining about who the strongest candidate or the most conservative, etc. We all have the same objective (getting rid of Obama) and if we all try going at from different angles we’ll never get that accomplished.

Just like Venezuela. The opposition all wanted to get rid of Chavez but each faction of the opposition had their own way they wanted to to do it and nobody worked together to achieve the same common goal. The end result was Chavez being re-elected and further chaging the landscape. We are never going to get rid of Obama unless conservatives, moderates, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Constitutionalist etc unite to ahieve that common goal.

It’s like I’ve said to everyone, take a look at what happened in Venezuela when Chavez came to power. We are relving that in our own country and we better get our heads out of asses soon or we will have a dictator we can never get rid of.

Pcoop on October 18, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Nearly as I can tell, if you claim to be a conservative and you support Huckabee you do so because you’re a social-conservative looking for a Christianist-government agenda.

Because, nearly as I can tell, on all the issues that REALLY matter to the future of this nation he’s wrong across the board. While he’s talking what you consider the good talk on sideshow issues like abortion and gay marriage he’s picking your pocket on everything else – climate fraud, immigration, economic and trade policy, foreign relations.

He’s George W Bush without the mumbles. Been there, done that, got the slashed pockets, not going back.

JEM on October 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM

WWWWWWWWWWWWTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!

dmann on October 18, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Damn … dmann …. damn … what a wmann……

TheAlamos on October 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM

And where is the real frontrunner, Ron Paul, in this poll?

You leave our best candidate and the only republican who can win a national election OFF the poll’s choices?

Unbelievably biased!

Ron Paul 2012, the only hope for America!

MaximusConfessor on October 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM

And where is the real frontrunner, Ron Paul, in this poll?

You leave our best candidate and the only republican who can win a national election OFF the poll’s choices?

Unbelievably biased!

Ron Paul 2012, the only hope for America!

MaximusConfessor on October 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM

If Ron Paul is such a great candidate and the only Republican who could win a national election, then how is it he did so poorly in the last one? In the Republican primaries, he received only 21 delegates, as opposed to John McCain’s 1367. Paul’s supporters may be terribly vocal (and they had a BLIMP!), but as for actually being able to win a national election, I just don’t see it.

TheQuestion on October 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM

technopeasant on October 17, 2009 at 11:22 PM

People know who Palin is but Huckabee is on TV every weekend. Most people do not pay ANY attention to politics, or do not do so until the month or so before an election.

Palin has receded from DoucheBag Media coverage, which was why she resigned: To stop ‘Chatman’ and other POS Obamoids from filing ethics complaints every Monday to create a media storyline. Huck is still Out There every week, grinning like hundred-dollar salesman in a fifty-dollar suit

Janos Hunyadi on October 18, 2009 at 3:15 PM

I have never voted based on polls and I never will. I will also never vote for Huckabee. I don’t trust him and I don’t expect that to change over the next three years.

SKYFOX on October 18, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Technopeasant,

You sound like you got your knickers in a knot from my last post about the internet polls.

First of all, this is a Sarah Palin site…it doesn’t matter who writes the original messages or even what they say, I have listened for months to posters like you and many, many others who support her on HA. That’s great…race42012 is a Romney site. That only means that most of the people who post are pro-Palin.

Last year before the VP was picked Mike Huckabee won every internet poll (so much for his supporters not being internet savvy as a poster said here), except the last month Romney starting winning with Huckabee in 2nd. We sought out and posted on all the internet polls. What happened? Did it do any good? Did McCain notice that Huckabee won almost ALL the internet polls? NO! He chose Sarah Palin. Don’t get me wrong, all the Huckabee supporters were thrilled with Sarah Palin. Of course, we were disappointed, but we really didn’t like McCain anyway.

As I stated earlier, Sarah, Romney and Ron Paul won most of the internet polls earlier in the summer. Do you think Ron Paul has a chance of winning the nomination. No, I don’t either. He has lots of supporters across the U.S., but during the 2008 primaries, he hardly registered in voters until the end when it was only McCain left. I’m not saying Sarah Palin is like Ron Paul in that she won’t win. I think she has a very good chance to win in the primary, but I’m not so sure how she would do in the General Election. Time changes everything though, so who knows. But, I do know that Romney and Paul supporters cheat in these internet polls…so is it an accurate representation of where the candidates are at that time??? Only if an internet poll cannot be voted in more than once. Even then I have heard they find a way around it and still vote many times which screws up the scores to make them look better.

The polls done by Rasmussen, Gallup or PPP can’t be voted in more than once. They have a proven way of conducting polls (at least the top ones do) that gives a more accurate method of voting. As far as Romney’s scores being so different, it will be interesting to see what his scores will be on PPP. BTW, it seems that Rasmussen held back information from his poll. He put Mike Huckabee against just Romney…Huckabee won by 5. He put Mike Huckabee against Sarah Palin, Huckabee won by 20. He put Romney against Palin, Romney won by 15. As of yesterday, he hadn’t released that information on his public site, but over on race42012, they had the scores.

As far as the people on this site who are from Arkansas and they know so and so who hates Huckabee….well, I have seen people who say the same thing about Palin in Alaska. There are always going to be people who don’t like the candidate who represents their state, but I do know Mike Huckabee had a 65% favorability rating in Arkansas back in March or April, 2008 according to McCain who checked it out before he campaigned in Arkansas for the general. Mike Huckabee got between 70-80% of the vote in Arkansas during the Republican primary, and I don’t think he would have gotten that high a score if the citizens of Arkansas didn’t like him in general. Mitt Romney didn’t win in Mass by too much over John McCain during the 2008 primary.

During Mike Huckabee’s show last night, he had visitors with all points of view so the people who listen can hear all sides to an issue, but he makes his opinions known as to how he feels about as issue in a civil and respectful way. He does not go AFTER people like Hannity or O’Reilly which is why his show is rated the #1 show on cable on the weekend. I guess a lot of people like how he handles his shows.

VFT on October 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM

POLL: None of the above.

GFW on October 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM

You have your own problems. For instance, how do you fool people a second time that Obama isn’t just an incompetent Marxist traitor to America. They wont be fooled again

we cross our fingers that you fools nominate Barbie Kudos and when you do (please, please, please), sit back with popcorn and watch the sweep.

Grow Fins on October 18, 2009 at 4:01 PM

MaximusConfessor on October 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Ron Paul? You mean the screwball congressman who has that same weird look on his face all day like the Heaven’s Gate leader?

Only after Ron Paul admits that he lives his life with an imaginary propellor on his beanie will I take him and his followers seriously.

Really Right on October 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Sarah Palin/Ann Coulter in 2012

Glenn Beck for White House Press Secretary

Percy_Peabody on October 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Sarah Palin/Ann Coulter in 2012

Glenn Beck for White House Press Secretary

Percy_Peabody on October 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM

While I don’t imagine that particular matchup developing, that would be all kinds of awesome. The VP debate alone would be epic. :P

TheQuestion on October 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

I doesn’t matter. We’re still 2 years out from any serious ideas on who’s in the running. One thing we all can agree on, I think, is that Obama will be gone even if he loses to another Dem. He’s done.

Geronimo on October 18, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Technopeasant,

I beg to differ with you on Huckabee’s previous polls. He has always been within 3-4 points of Romney and maybe 5 of Sarah Palin. His numbers have not been woefully low. He was at the top for the last 6 months of the PPP poll.

For all you other posters making sarcastic comments about Mike Huckabee, I ask you to stick to issues and stop making elitist claims about Mike Huckabee (like he’s not good enough to be President- a lot of people obviously think different than you do) (like MH being jealous of Mitt Romney – you are assuming that because you don’t like MH). Mike Huckabee doesn’t like Mitt Romney because he has no principles or values he stands by. It has nothing to do with his Mormon religion – that’s just as convenient excuse the Rombots use against Christians who liked Huckabee better. We all have the right to vote for who we want. You don’t have to have my reasons, and I don’t have to have your reasons. He changes his principles for every election. Last time he ran as a social conservative…this 2012 election he is running as a moderate – trying to get the votes that McCain had last time. Mitt Romney was the candidate who told everybody else including McCain that they were liberal Republicans, and yet, this is what he wants to be in 2012 because he thinks it’s the best way to get elected. POINT MADE!!!

VFT on October 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Re: Ron Paul.

I think he’s a great Congressman. I think he represents his district very well.

As a Presidential candidate, his positions are 50% brilliant – and 50% brilliantly scary. Which is about 30% too much.

He got a big boost for his hardcore isolationism in the last campaign, but that’s a great theoretical position that doesn’t work in the real world.

JEM on October 18, 2009 at 7:35 PM

If Huck is the best we can offer in 2012, then we’re as doomed as the Mayan’s predict.

DFCtomm on October 18, 2009 at 12:05 PM

+100

Best line of the day today!!

Conservative Samizdat on October 18, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Sarah Palin Easily Wins 3rd Politico Poll Over Obama & Biden

Once again Sarah Palin easily wins Politico’s Poll: Which politician would you like to follow around for a day? With 28,540 votes cast Governor Palin took 57% of the votes compared to 23% for the disaster Obama and 2% for the buffoon Biden.

Back in early August and September Governor Palin also easily handled her GOP counterparts on 2 separate Politico polls and also a huge Newsmax poll with over 600,000 votes cast. In the August Politico Poll Governor Palin received 46% to Governor Romney’s 25% and Speaker Gingrich’s 6%.

Politico’s September poll Governor Palin also dominated with 55%, Governor Romney 15% & Governor Huckabee 10%. This poll had a total of 24,046 votes were cast.

The largest and most comprehensive poll, by Newsmax, Governor Palin did even better. She received an overall 83% approval rating and 78% said they would support her if she runs in 2012.

By all accounts, Governor Palin is the most popular GOP politician in the country and the front runner for 2012. Not a single other candidate could fill a stadium nor out sell every author in the country. Within 8 hours of announcing her upcoming book and 8 weeks before it is released the book will most likely call for a 2nd printing printing.

The disaster Obama could not even fill a stadium unless it was a coordinated effort with union help or a paid-to-be-there audience. As we all saw with his the fake town hall meetings for Obamacare.

http://sarahpalininternetcoalitionblogger.blogspot.com/2009/10/sarah-palin-easily-wins-3rd-politico.html

gary4205 on October 18, 2009 at 8:51 PM

gary4205,

Those polls are meaningless in the world of authentic polls. They are based on how many Palin or Romney supporters come to vote, not what American voters think. I will give you an example – Mike Huckaee won the VV poll by 28% to 12% for (4) 2nd place people including Sarah Palin. Politico did a poll that same weekend asking people who THEY would vote for in the VV poll. Of course, somebody else won except Huckabee, but that didn’t change the FACT that Huckabee won by the people who voted in the VV Conference which was the real poll, not some made up internet poll.

I am not saying Sarah Palin cannot win in these polls – Rasmussen, Gallup etc, because she has and did right after the 2008 election and won handily. She was way ahead then, but now she isn’t. That doesn’t mean that in the next two or three years, she won’t be ahead again. Nobody knows what the future holds for any of the candidates, but don’t put down Huckabee and make it look like he can’t be a winner because you don’t like him. He is ahead strong>now, just like Sarah was ahead right after the election. I feel both of them are strong candidates, and it would be better for our party if we all can agree not to attack each other’s candidate and just wait and see what the polls will continue to show.

VFT on October 18, 2009 at 9:44 PM

If Huckabee gets the nomination, then I just plain give up on this party.

WyoMike on October 18, 2009 at 10:10 PM

I am attaching a post about Mike Huckabee. In this article it clearly shows Mike Huckabee would be the best candidate to beat Obama except for the people like the poster above who would give up on the Republican Party if Huckabee gets the nomination. I have heard some despicable comments from you HA commenters today that were awful and showed that just like the article commented, you would vote for anybody else just so it was anti-Huckabee. Do you want to win against Obama or not. Just because you don’t think MH could beat Obama…apparently other more objective people like the author of this article believe otherwise. I have proved in previous comments that Mike Huckabee is the closest candidate to Sarah Palin. IF Sarah Palin doesn’t enter the race or drops out before Huckabee, could you support him then? Or would you rather Obama win just so you could keep your bias against Huckabee?

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/01 … ed-mccain/
The American Conservative
The Anti-Huckabee Party?
Posted on October 17th, 2009 by Daniel Larison

Andrew Stuttaford cites a new Rasmussen poll of Republican presidential preferences showing some sizeable support for Huckabee, and he wonders if this means that the GOP will become the “party of Huckabee.” I think this is extremely unlikely. While Huckabee was officially the second-biggest vote-getter in the primaries last year, he achieved this mostly through perseverance and concentrated support from evangelical voters. Had Romney continued to compete and waste his money on what would still have been a losing bid, it is not certain that Huckabee could have managed his second place finish.
Approximately a third of Republican primary voters backed Huckabee, and slightly less than a third of the Republican respondents would now like to see him as the nominee, so he retains a considerable base of support that he had built up last year. Does this mean that the GOP is or is going to be the “party of Huckabee”? Only in the sense that in terms of sheer numbers Huckabee’s voters and sympathizers make up the largest bloc of Republicans. The trouble is that Huckabee consolidates this bloc behind him at the expense of losing most others. The strange thing is that Huckabee’s charisma and style make it less likely that this would be replicated in a general election: where Palin won enduring Republican devotion by being strident and combative, the good culture warrior, Huckabee has typically cultivated a style on the national stage laced with humor and self-deprecation that seemed to make him less polarizing.
He is able to do this because his record on social issues is already solid and does not need to be emphasized (as McCain’s was), exaggerated (as Palin’s was) or invented out of thin air (as Romney’s was). I have thought for a while that Huckabee’s personality could have some of the appealing all-things-to-all-people quality that Obama had during the election. If the economy remains a major issue in the next election, as it most likely will be, the sheer disgust economic conservatives still have for him could be worn almost as a badge of pride in the general election. An early opponent of the bailout, Huckabee could tap into populist dissatisfaction with the coziness of corporations and government without being pigeonholed as nothing more than an obsessed tax-cutter.
Huckabee isn’t going to have that chance. Even if it seems irrational, movement activists who are not primarily interested in social issues distrust Huckabee intensely, and they will work to block him and deny him funding just as they did last time. The anti-Huckabee sentiment among movement activists is a useful reminder that all the Republican culture war defenses of Palin during the general election were aimed at mobilizing all the people whose candidate, Huckabee, they had just spent the previous 18 months mocking and ridiculing with all of the same language used against Palin. For turnout purposes, the GOP still finds Huckabee’s people useful, but its leaders and activists will not tolerate Huckabee taking the lead in the party as the nominee.
The effect this will have, as Stuttaford’s post suggests, is that most Catholic, mainline Protestant and secular Republicans will rally to whichever anti-Huckabee candidate appears strongest. This will most likely mean a coalition of voters arrayed behind Romney, who will then be a far weaker draw in the general election than Huckabee would have been. At first, that sounds implausible. Surely the more “moderate,” less “sectarian” candidate should be able to win more support, right? No, not really, because the things that make Romney more attractive to non-evangelicals in the GOP also force him to spend more time trying to prove that evangelicals and social conservatives can accept him. Aside from the complication that his religion introduces into this, this means that Romney has to emphasize social issues, on which he has no credibility, and public professions of religious faith, which are some of the things that so many Republicans and independents find viscerally unappealing about what they perceive to be the norm in Republican politics. Huckabee does not need to do as much of this because he would already have much of the right locked down. Like McCain, Romney will continually be trying to satisfy people on the right who cannot muster much enthusiasm for him, but who will wrongly conclude that he is more “electable.” That could involve another desperate VP nomination to generate interest or a campaign that actually moves right after the primaries are over. Fear of their own evangelicals could lead Republicans to embrace a technoratic wonk whom most voters will not be able to trust and whom most conservatives grudgingly accept because he is not Huckabee.

VFT on October 19, 2009 at 12:46 AM

VFT, you can put lipstick on that Huckabee pig (37 different shades, too!), but it’s still a pig.

Romney, likewise, is yesterday’s non-news.

I’m not voting for either unless they end up being the GOP nominee and I have to.

Palin is my pick unless and until she announces that she’s not running in 2012.

Jenfidel on October 19, 2009 at 4:45 AM

VFT, copying and pasting entire articles is also decidedly NOT within Fair Use. A quote and a link is all you\’re entitled to – you should never swipe entire articles.

Laura on October 19, 2009 at 8:56 AM

Please tell me they aren’t planning on trotting Huckabee out there. No one knows him but Fox Viewers who had nothing to do on a sunday night. There’s a lot of voters to sway. If they plan on using HIM they had better get him on some shows to see what his deal is. We know Palin is a fireball. If she runs even under another party I’m going there.

johnnyU on October 19, 2009 at 9:11 AM

If Sarah runs as a third party candidate, Obama will get a second term.

csdeven on October 19, 2009 at 9:41 AM

There’s a new Rassmussen poll showing Mike and Mitt going head to head with each other: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/head_to_head_huckabee_44_romney_39

Conservative Samizdat on October 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM

The reality is Palin and perhaps Huckabee are the only one that can beat Obama. The press as well as Obama will make an issue with Mitt’s religion. They passed on Obama’s muslim roots, but will not give Mitt the same courtesy.

shar61 on October 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM

For those Palin lovers out there, Hot Air has just posted another Rassmussen poll showing that Huckabee and Romney would beat Palin in an election: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/palin_is_distant_second_in_gop_match_ups_with_huckabee_romney

Conservative Samizdat on October 19, 2009 at 12:22 PM

In the Republican primaries, Governor Huckabee will not attract fiscal conservatives. Governor Romney will not attract social conservatives, and perhaps lose some fiscal conservatives, due to his failed universal health care program in Mass. In addition, Governor Huckabee will not carry the Western states, nor many mid-western states. Governor Romney cannot carry the Southern states.

Governor Palin will appeal to all three legs of the Republican party, those being fiscal, national security, and social conservatives. Moreover, Governor Palin will generate goodwill among Republican politicians in the 2010 campaign, as she will be raising all the money for Republican congressional candidates. She is the only Republican candidate that draws a crowd wherever she travels.

Governors Huckabee and Romney cannot unite the Republican electorate, as neither one appeals to the base of the party, any more than Senator McCain did in 2008. A Republican candidate will not be elected president without the strong suppport of the party base. It seems that only Governor Palin appeals to the base, which can generally be defined as conservatives.

The fundamental question for Republicans is whether they will nominate a candidate that cannot attract one or more of the party’s three legs, or whether they will unite behind the only candidate who can appeal to all three legs.

Like it or not, the harsh reality is that there are enough traditional Republican voters who simply will not vote for either Governor Huckabee, or Governor Romney in a general election – even if it means President Obama wins a second term, and the systematic dismantling of the nation’s fundamental values and institutional pillars continues.

America is at a crossroads; and either the Republican
party’s voters will unite and save the country from the path of implosion, or the country will continiue down the road of self-imposed destruction.

In view of the foregoing, some of you may wish to explain to your fellow Republicans why you will refrain from voting in a general election for Governor Romney or Huckabee, which was the case in respect to Senator McCain, prior to him selecting Governor Palin as his VP candidate. Any explanation from me would not be relevant as I have had no party affiliation for over 20 years. I would offer this observation, to wit: there are some Republican voters who will no longer vote for any candidate that they perceive as disingenuous in any respect, whether small or large, as a matter of conscience. They will simply not vote for a presidential candidate. Hence, this nation will either stand for something, or not at all. As Lincoln said in his famous “House Divided” speech, “It will become all one thing or all the other.”

SheetAnchor on October 19, 2009 at 1:24 PM

People are fickle-they don’t know what they want from one day to the next.
But America is a slow, simmering cauldron of discontent right now.
It’s going to boil over by the next elections. And then in 2012, it’s going to reach a frenzy.
The fickle morons are what gave us Obama and candidates like McCain & Huckabee.
The free thinkers gave us candidates like Palin & Paul & Romney.
But Paul is nuts-
Huckabee is a flim-flam man-
McCain is no better than Obama
Romney is evidently too perfect (I’m not sure why that’s a problem) and he’s also too centrist for me at times-
And Sarah is a woman.
I vote Romeny for the economy.
I vote Sarah for the Constitution.
The rest suck.
I want an upheaval in the political arena.
I want a political cleansing of DC.
I want real change.
I don’t want another flim-flam man as POTUS.
I don’t want a nut like Paul as POTUS.
Romney is only attractive to me bcs he’s got the brains to take on anything.
But Sarah brings along passion & reform.
Real reform that a lot of Americans are hungry for.
I don’t care if she’s a neophyte.
I WANT a neophyte in office.
She’s got good character.
And the people she would pick as advisors would be people with good character.
Nuff said.

Badger40 on October 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM

VFT on October 19, 2009 at 9:44 PM

THESE (INTERNET)POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS IN THE WORLD OF AUTHENTIC POLLS. THEY ARE BASED ON HOW MANY PALIN OR ROMNEY VOTERS COME TO VOTE, NOT WHAT AMERICAN VOTERS THINK

COMMENT:

1)Saying some method is more “authentic” than others is an elitist way of dismissing alternative paths to the truth

2)So called “authentic” polls can be manipulated by the amount of respondents, the makeup of the respondents, where they live, the income of the respondents, the question that is asked and the agenda of the pollster and so on. Pretending that polls like Rasmussen, Gallup and PPP are completely accurate is foolish. The reason why Rasmussen is given more credence is that he polls likely voters and not “adults” and his daily tracking poll results are more accurate as they show trends, but this does not mean his assumptions may not be totally correct

3)You imply that Palin or Romney supporters are from Mars and not American voters. That is ridiculous. Remember the votes are voluntary. You might ask why do people vote in Internet polls. Could it because they are passionate supporters of these folks? Could it be because they are Internet literate? And could the reason that Huckabee can only generate 8% of the vote in this poll and finishes near the bottom in other Internet polls be because his supporters are “soft” or that they may in be overwhelminingly internet illiterates. Don’t get me wrong I don’t care how Huckabee supporters conduct their lives but if this is a profile of Huckabee supporters the question must be asked even if Huckabee gains the 2012 GOP nomination how is he going to beat Obama who has mastered the use of the Internet without having a major presence or support on the Internet, especially those folks under 40? I will continue to ask that question until Huckabee proves to me he can do better in Internet polls. A frontrunner for the GOP nomination should not be polling less than 10% on any poll, Internet or otherwise.

technopeasant on October 19, 2009 at 1:51 PM

technopeasant,

I have already stated that after the primary, Mike Huckabee won ALL the internet polls until about 1 month before McCain chose Sarah for VP. At that time, Romney started winning some with Huckabee second. If you will remember, Sarah wasn’t even on any of the internet polls. Did that stop McCain from choosing her? No, did it help that Huckabee won most of the other internet polls, NO! I’m sure McCain followed the professional pollster polls, but didn’t follow the internet polls to see who was more acceptable to the American people. I never have said Romney and Sarah supporters are from Mars????

I can’t speak for all the Huckabee supporters but I guess that right now we haven’t been looking for the internet polls to compete in because it’s so far out. And after what we saw last year that it didn’t make any difference on the internet polls, maybe people aren’t looking for them. As you can see from the Rasmussen poll there are certainly many Huckabee followers – he has gained 44% of all the voters. But we did all that last year and it didn’t help Huckabee at all with McCain. At the time I know I thought people will see how well liked he is because he is winning all the polls. When I listen to the commenters on HA, it sure doesn’t show that. I’m not sure that people on this site even knew that Huckabee was winning all the polls after the primary was over and before Sarah was picked. So you see, how much influence do the internet polls really have if on this Conservative website people didn’t pay attention last year?

I don’t know if the Huckabee followers would start being really serious about voting in all the internet polls because it’s too early – 3 years away!

How can you say you won’t take Huckabee seriously when he beats Sarah Palin 55-35 when they are against each other one on one? Yes, this is just one poll, but Huckabee won in every PPP poll for the last 6 months. These are people who were chosen at random across the U.S. Not internet polls where each candidates fans are told to go vote on a particular internet poll. Do you think if the Huckabee fans didn’t know or think it’s too early or whatever that he isn’t in the top tier? You can’t have the professional ones saying that and not believe he is a viable candidate. Now if the professional polls indicated that Mike Huckabee was at the bottom of the pack consistently, no matter how many Huckabee won on the internet polls, I would believe the professional polls because they are at random polls, not based on how many of their supporters went to vote.

As I have stated before Romney & Paul voters know how to cheat on the internet polls and vote many times. How could they be accurate then?

VFT on October 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM

StreetAnchor,

Your analysis of Sarah Palin being a candidate for all three legs of the Republican Party is confusing to me. How is she anymore knowledgeable as a national security Conservative than Huckabee or Romney? How is she more viable in the Fiscal Conservative dept.? Obviously, Palin and Huckabee will get the support of the Social Conservatives.

Mike Huckabee may not be a very good candidate for the West right now, but in 2008, he didn’t get the chance to talk to them. He didn’t have much money and concentrated on the beginning states and the south which he was pretty successful in being #1 in those states, beating McCain and Romney. He didn’t have the money to go out West. If the people out West get an opportunity to hear and see him, I believe he will get many more states out West. Nobody knows now.

Huckabee received a lot of the Christian voters in 2008, but not all as you can see by McCain and Romney percentages. But Huckabee also got a lot of the Republican vote too. He has scored as the #1 candidate in 2-3 of the PPP polls with Independents and Dems. Romney has as well, but Sarah has not done very well in that Dept. So, in the general, it looks like Huckabee and Romney would do a lot better than Sarah unless the voters stayed home.
With the way we all hate Obama and fear for our country, hopefully the voters will come out in 2012 to beat Obama. With Huckabee’s show, many more people across the U.S. that didn’t even know who he was in 2008, now know him and like him. So I’m not sure your evaluation is accurate. Look at my post above that gave a indication from the article’s perspective of a Huckabee and Romney run in the general election. If the Palin, and/or Romney voters if those candidates are not the nominee would support Huckabee, I think he has a very good chance of beating Obama. Mike Huckabee got over 48% of the Black vote in Arkansas when he ran for Gov. – 2nd term. He is the only Republican candidate who has a CHANCE to capture a bigger (even a small amt bigger) in the 2012 election. That might help the Republicans win too.

VFT on October 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM

BTW, Technopeasant, on one of the PPP polls, Huckabee scored highest among the under 40. So you are right, it depends on who they ask, how the questions are presented, etc. You take most of the Professional polls,put them together and get a general idea how your candidate is performing in the polls. RealClearPolitics.com is a very good resource during the primaries because they take all of the polls and average the scores to come up with a percentage on each candidate. Even though some professional polls are more accurate than others, you can at least see a trend for your candidate. They break it down by state, etc during the primaries. Right now, RCP isn’t doing that because it’s too early, but they usually will report on each of the polls when they come out.

VFT on October 19, 2009 at 5:18 PM

In answer to your question, national security is rarely complicated, as it mostly depends upon one’s world view; the view one has of America’s role in the world; and one’s personal moral convictions and courage. To illustrate, President Reagan’s strong policy against the Soviets was not complicated. It was based on increasing our military power, and standing firmly against Communism as a moral imperative; that is, peace through strength, both militarily and morally. In short, President Reagan’s policy as he articulated it was “We win, they lose.” President Kennedy had the same moral posture, stating in his inaugural address, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Governor Palin has been very clear in her view of America’s role, and her understanding of its friends, and enemies. She understands “American Exceptionalism,” and the imperative of the US remaining the preeminent military power in the world, as paramount to our nation’s security. As Commander-in-Chief she would aggressively defend our nation. Her recent policy statements on the War on Terror, and recommendation to President Obama that he quickly honor our ground commander’s request for thousands of American soldiers affirm her security posture. It is not that other Republican candidates would not be equally aggressive on national security and the defense of liberty; but rather the significant distinction is in the broader political context reflecting that she is a fiscal conservative, demonstrated by her aggressive cost cutting and tax reduction policies as Governor; social conservative; and national security conservative; which makes her the candidate who is in a position to unite these three legs of the Republican electorate.

Now there is the possibility that economic conditions in the US could deteriorate to the point that many Republican voters will become equally enthusiastic about any Republican candidate. However, this would require social conservatives becoming excited about Governor Romney; or fiscal conservatives becoming excited about Governor Huckabee. In addition, both of these candidates will likely damage each other in the primary process, and the liberal media establishment will greatly assist them in their efforts. Governor Romney will excoriatate Governor Huckabee as a tax and spend Governor; and Governor Huckabee will lambast Governor Romney for his universal health care program, and his politically expedient position on abortion.

SheetAnchor on October 19, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Below is a link to Governor Palin’s budget management performance.

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/06/governor-palins-budgets-pointing-out.html

SheetAnchor on October 19, 2009 at 7:53 PM

Poll predictability this early? Ask President Guiliani.

PappyD61 on October 19, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Street Anchor,

Thank you for your kind and not critical response.

Mike Huckabee has made lots of the same kind of statements about his feelings on the defense of America and a strong military. It seems even if he talks about it on his show, “Huckabee” the MSM and even other Republicans are still ignoring what he says..just like they did in the primary of 2008. He has backed Pres. Bush’s Iraq policy except the stubbornness of staying the same course when it was obvious we needed to change course.

I’ll bet if you looked into MH’s policies as Gov. in Arkansas with what he had to deal with,you might change your mind on him being a Fiscal Conservative. Spending went up during his tenure, but the state grew also. The percentage of spending compared to the growth was on par with other states. Now if CFG just mentioned how much the spending went up..you can see how he would look like a big spender. But with the state growing, it makes a big difference in explaining that spending. You see how the ads and CFG critiques of Huckabee were slanted???

As I have stated before, Forbes wants Mitch Daniels, Gov. of Ind. to run for President. He thinks he would be a great President. I live in Indiana and we had high property taxes. Gov. Daniels raised the Sales Tax and the Cigarette Tax to help pay for reducing the Property Taxes. Now Gov. Huckabee raised some taxes too, but it was soooo bad for Mike Huckabee, but Gov. Daniels is still the golden boy for the Fiscal Conservativees. They ignore it that he raised taxes too.

Why do the Wash Elite do this to Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin for that matter?? I read in an article in a magazine,that the Washington leaders will not support a Social Conservative Christian. They want the Fiscal Conservatives or moderate Conservatives to represent the Rep.Party…i.e. Mitt Romney!!! Why can’t they see that this is the kind of candidate we had run in 2008, McCain…a moderate who couldn’t win in the general because people thought if you are going to have Dem. light, you might as well vote for the real Dem, Obama. Don’t they ever learn…why don’t they get out in the middle of the country and see what the REAL conservatives think rather than just the East and West Coast people?

VFT on October 20, 2009 at 12:09 AM

Didn’t this drop off the front page before the same post was essentially rewritten?

Pull it back up, maybe you can squeeeeze it to 600 comments….

cs89 on October 20, 2009 at 9:52 AM

To those who question that this is a pro-Palin site, why has AP posted two threads on the same subject (Palin’s low poll numbers with Rasmussen)that place Sarah Palin in an unfavorable light and seeks to undermine any potential Palin candidacy and marginalize Sarah and in addition over the last 9 months has mostly posted negative or sarcastic threads (with accompanying pictures)to diminish her importance and trivialize her attempts to challenge Obama.

Once and for all, HOT AIR is NOT a pro-Palin web site.

technopeasant on October 20, 2009 at 11:18 AM

DFCtomm on October 18, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Im with you. Huckabee is a funny guy, more suited for a variety tv show than running the government. Him not dropping out of the primaries last yr caused the GOP to end up with McCain. by the time Pa had their primary, McCain was the only one left to vote for…and a lot of folks were pissed because they couldnt vote for Mitt.

becki51758 on October 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM

technopeasant,

Calling this a pro-Palin site has nothing to do with what Alluh or anybody uses to start the post. It has to do with what the members of this site right. Over at the other article about Sarah being killed by Romney and Huckabee, look at the responses. 90% of them are responses that are supporting Sarah Palin. I think Allah just wants to have anything to do with Palin up because then he will get a huge response. I wonder if he gets paid for how many responses there are? Each and every time he puts up some article or news about Sarah the resposes usually range between 500-1,000…mostly defending her. This IS a Sarah Palin website.

VFT on October 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM

VFT on October 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM

If Hot Air is perceived to be a pro-Palin web site let me put it this way: Michelle, Ed and AP have not expressed any favoritism towards Palin in their threads. If Palin supporters respond to these threats it is done on a voluntary basis, and by the way Huckabee supporters have every right to do so as well. If Huckabee supporters do participate it might lead one to believe that Hot Air is definitely not a pro-Huckabee site. But neither does Palin supporter participation make HA a pro-Palin web site either especially with AP’s predominantly snarky comments on Palin and his efforts to do anything within his power to marginalize her.

technopeasant on October 21, 2009 at 1:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6