Would GOP Huckabee Nomination Be Democrats’ Dream Come True?
There is an apparent impressive “surge” going on — on the political front: the continued surge of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, which is now reflected in two polls.
So the Democrats are now faced with a new twist in this campaign as (once again) the talking heads and for-certain experts have to reformulate their all-knowing pronouncements on what was going to happen. Huckabee is a new face. A fresh face. So shouldn’t the Demmies now be afraid?
The answer is apparently — for right now — NO:
While presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is surging in new polls of GOP candidates, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Tuesday shows he would lose to all three leading Democratic candidates by double digits in hypothetical contests.
In head-to-head matchups — the first to include Huckabee — the former Arkansas governor loses to Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York by 10 percentage points (54 percent to 44 percent), to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois by 15 points (55 percent to 40 percent) and to former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina by 25 points (60 percent to 35 percent).
The poll comes on the heels of a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Monday that showed Huckabee doubled his support nationally among likely Republican voters in the last month and is in a statistical dead heat with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. View complete poll results
But Huckabee’s double-digit deficits with the leading Democrats likely suggest that the Arkansas Republican still lacks widespread name recognition nationally, according to Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director.
“Americans tend not to support candidates they’re not familiar with, and it’s possible Huckabee’s numbers are low in these hypothetical matchups because he is still not very well known nationally,” Holland said.
So the question becomes: as Americans get to know more about Huckabee, will the possibility that he might get the nomination be good or bad news for the Democrats?
It’d be good news if his low numbers stayed low or Americans didn’t like what the learned as they “sampled” him. It’d be bad news for the Democrats if the real story of 2008 becomes how Huckabee emerged Reagan-like, as someone who the experts “knew” didn’t have a chance but whose personality came across the boob tube in a way that he connected with Americans who might not even totally agree with him.
But note that part of Huckabee’s persona will be defined by the Democrats who will seek to “define him.”
According to Matt Drudge (who we do not usually quote on this site due to some accuracy issues in some of his past posts — but this fits in with the poll numbers), the Democrats are in no rush. Drudge quotes Democratic sources as saying a party directive essentially orders Democrats to leave Huckabee alone.
The reason: he is perceived as the “Republican’s George McGovern” — someone whose past statements can be used against him to define him as too extreme to be President.
NOTE: In the past we’ve said here that Drudge’s sources are almost all Republicans so he couldn’t be trusted on his exclusive reports that quoted unnamed Democrats. But that has changed recently with several stories noting that Drudge is now believed to have a working news relationship with some operatives in Senator Hillary Clinton’s camp. That could be the sourcing on this item.
The Drudge item ends with a quote from an unnamed Republican saying Clinton should be afraid — that Huckabee could be her worst nightmare.
And, indeed, if by the summer it’s clear that Americans in 2008 truly CRAVE a fresh face in the White House — no one connected to the past bitter political battles, or who has been on the scene forever and is trying to cultivate an existing image or erase another — who would most benefit among the leading candidates? Democratic Senator Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee.
If voters want a change and the choice is Clinton and Huckabee, the war will be on by each camp to define the other and may the best mudslinger win. But the thirst for a change could be so big that the Democrats could find themselves with a bigger battle on their hands than they thought.
The supreme irony: both Clinton and Huckabee are candidates who are popular with their respective parties’ base but may have a tougher and more difficult sell in the general election.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
22 Responses to “Would GOP Huckabee Nomination Be Democrats’ Dream Come True?”
“Extreme”? This indicates that, as predicted, the Democrats will lie, lie, lie and slander Huckabee and others like him — when in fact he’s sometimes behaved more like a Democrat than a Republican.
That’s basically the way I’ve figured it, Joe. While Huckabee might be appealing to the 40% of Republicans who self-designate as “evangelical Christians”, he’s not nearly so promising for the general election.
Count on the regular Republican leadership to begin consolidating around someone other than Huckabee if Huckabee wins in Iowa. If they were smart, it’d be McCain but I’m betting Romney.
Anyone interested in what Huckabee is really like face to face should try this funny (but it actually happened) column:
http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14
The reason: he is perceived as the “Republican’s George McGovern” — someone whose past statements can be used against him to define him as too extreme to be President.
That would not surprise me. In fact if I was the republicans I would do the same thing to Obama……which they have been doing. The gop wants to face Obama. A far left Black Man.
While this is not meant to be racist the truth is that a Black man has never been president. Is the country ready for that in 2008? The gop wants to face Obama.
Because if you put Rino Rudi against Clueless Obama you just might see a significant amount of Dems holding their noses and pulling the lever for a Liberal pretending to be a Republican Rudi.
These are interesting times. Personally I dont care who the Republicans nominate because I have stated before that I have decided to support Hillary.
It was ready for Colin Powell in 1992 and 1996.
Huckabee won’t appeal to the population at large. He doesn’t believe in evolution and went on record in the ’90′s stating that gays have an aberrant lifestyle, and that AIDs victims should be separated from the general population.
Kritt that is precisely why the Democrats want to face Him. He would go down to such a defeat that even Republicans would be ashamed and not vote for him.
DLSIt was ready for Colin Powell in 1992 and 1996.
I would have voted for Colin Powell. The man has spent 40 years in the military, Was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Secretary of State. If ever there was a Man Qualified to take office it would be Colin Powell. I was hoping and praying that Colin Powell ran for office this election.
His moderate Conservative approach to politics and foreign policy is just what this country and world needs. However Im sure because he is not a Democrat he is an Uncle Tom and the worlds worst candidate for the job.
If only Obama had Colin Powells credentials he would garner 90 percent of the vote.
Somebody- I would have voted for Powell also- he reminds me of what I’ve read about Eisenhower. He was the most respected member of the Bush cabinet. I don’t remember hearing much of any criticism of him from Democrats–so I think you are overgeneralizing.His appeal crosses party lines like Obama’s does.
I would have, too. I wanted him to run in 1992 and 1996, even in 2000.
> because he is not a Democrat he is an Uncle Tom
That, sadly, remains standard operating procedure among those who believe it. Be a robot, not a human who can think for yourself! Be a slave.
OK now you need to quote an actual Democrat who called Powell an Uncle Tom -the only person I can think of who did so was Harry Belafonte and I don’t even think he’s eligible to vote here!
A Huckabee nomination would be the Dems’ come true because he does not appeal to the general public.
As far as Powell: I’m not sure I would have voted for Powell in 2000 if it was Gove v. Powell. But in this go around, if Obama doesn’t work out for the Dem. nomination, I’d definitely consider voting for Powell (even as a Repub.) for the reasons others have given here. He would be awesome, but I think Obama would be awesomer- hey, I’m from California what do you expect?
The GOP has become like the Democrats of the 1980s – all about interest groups and positions on sub-issues and not about core message. Huckabee appeals to one sub-set of the GOP base, but repulses another. The whole becomes less than the sum of its parts and the GOP shrinks into minority status.
Not sure if his 1998 statement about wanting to reclaim the country for Christ will win over many moderates or indies, lol! I think the Democrats would wipe the floor with that kind of candidate. (although he is very likeable personally- I hear Bush is too!)
“Extreme”? This indicates that, as predicted, the Democrats will lie, ”
This is either another irrelevant snark, or it needs backing up.
No one has said, as far as I know, that he is extreme in every way.
His views on evolution are extreme, in point of fact, to everyone but some evangelicals.
His statement about isolating AIDS patients was extreme, but I give him credit for amending his views.
His recent ad questioning Mormonism is extreme, IMO.
Over all, he flits in and out of the extreme range, and there are no lies about him involved or necessary.
Now, if you’re talking about opinions, those will vary. But an opinion is not a lie.
People should stop lying by calling every opinion they don’t like a lie.
It undermines their credibility.
OK now you need to quote an actual Democrat who called Powell an Uncle Tom
I don’t have to do others’ homework, K, but it’s fun to comply with your request:
Daily Kos (Uncle Tom Powell Stumps for Massah Bush)
Alter-Net (Aunt Jemima Rice, Uncle Tom Powell?)
Village Voice (The Uncle Tom Dilemma: Are Blacks Like Colin Powell Asking African Americans to Sell Out?)
“The Uncle Tom Vote”
Need I go on? No.
But –
“Uncle Tom Outreach Initiative” [chuckle]
They lied in 1994 (Gephardt was the most notorious liar who misused “extreme” and “extremist” after the 1994 elections) and if anyone is so foolish as to call Huckabee “extreme” this early in the election, it is an indication that the Democrats’ “ignorance bloc” vote, along with others who are neurotic to psychotic about anybody religious, will respond to the “extreme” lie, which has been used over and over by Democrats already when referring to such people. (“Far right” is another common lie that the stupid buy.)
End of remedial lesson.
I grew up in California and I don’t feel the same way. I suspect it’s not so much where you live, but your age, affecting how you feel about the guy.
DLS-
Unless you want to be held accountrable for everything Par Robertson, Rush Limbaugh or the like have said, then you should get over your ignorance about Demorcrats, liberals or THE LEFT.
None of your sources are representative of the mainstream left-of-center people that you so love to smear.
Like all the lefties that I know, I never read Daily Kos (except out of once yearly curiosity) or go to Alter Net, for example, which is why I don’t even know what goes on there unless it’s ballyhood here as representing THE LEFT.
In fact, it’s this kind of ignorant mischaracterization of THE LEFT that has resulted in my becoming more left with every insulting snarky comment that I read..
I wonder how many liberals are created by commnets like that every single day?
If you want to rant about the Left, perhaps you would do the courteous thing and identily who or what in the Left you’re upset about.
DLS-
Sorry, I cut off my last sentence.
If you want to rant about the Left, perhaps you would do the courteous thing and identily who or what in the Left you’re upset about. There may be quite some occasions when I agree with you, if I knew what, precisely,who or what you were referring to.
On the other hand, “The Left lies” just makes me want to run more left, to get away from anything assorated with that statement.
You need not only to read, but to understand what I have been posting, which has been self-explanatory, and no way makes me accountable for whatever anybody else, mainstream or otherwise, says.
It’s not so much that he repels people; he doesn’t, nor does the Religious Right in general. Repulsion, where it exists, among the normal is on the light side — it’s a vague uncomfortable feeling of having “outsider” (and “unaccepted”) status among members of that group (Minority Lite feeling — the feeling many minorities and women may have toward the GOP, “not a club member”).
As such there is no broad appeal, just a gentle appeal, among those of us who have examined the guy to some extent. I do not believe it is appealing enough at all to capitalize on anti-Hillary sentiment, which I believe may be exaggerated. (We are familiar with her and aren’t outraged by her currently; if she’s elected it’s a matter of waiting to see how farther left she goes; we can’t control her.)
The Religious Right is a voter bloc courted (I will not say “wooed” or “woo” as the Herd has been currently doing; I’m already sick of encountering those words) at election time, but otherwise taken pretty much for granted, which is why members of that group have occasionally expressed frustration that they are not heard, that they are taken for granted, that little more than an occasional scrap is given to them — which is the case.
The Religious Right is not the Leviathan some would have it be, any more than it is evil as so many falsely claim. The bloc to whom Huckabee would truly likely appeal actually is small. You are correct.
Just one reminder to those overreacting to “Huck”: there is a large Religious Right presence here in Iowa*, which explains his success in the polls here so far. Don’t give him and Iowa more weight than is merited.
* Haven’t any of y’all crossing the state on I-80 or going between St. Louis and Minneapolis seen the occasional anti-abortion signs and billboards by the corn and soybean fields? Or the occasional “JESUS” sign or “Real Men Don’t Use Porn,” etc., signs?