Huckabee steals middle-class southern evangelical votes from rich northern Mormon?

It's driving me nuts. The MSM keeps repeating the same old trope. Apparently, they still believe that Christian conservatives are uneducated and easy to command. And the Romney camp and his pals at Clear Channel are feeding this idea to the media, suggesting that Huckabee supporters are just stupid fodder for McCain's campaign and ought to rally around their annointed resurrected Reagan, Mitt Romney.

I just saw on CNN Anderson Cooper asking Democratic strategist Donna Brazille if Huckabee's presence in the race is hurting Romney's chances in the South. (As though this liberal Democrat has some special insight into the minds of the conservative Republican electorate?) She of course gave the oft-repeated conventional wisdom without any real data top back it up.

But I keep wondering - how many people do these media political elites even know who is voting for Huckabee? Of course they probably don't know any because Huckabee's stronghold is not in the D.C. beltway and the Manhattan press offices. These are the people who couldn't imagine in 1980 that anyone was voting for Reagan because of course they didn't know anyone who was voting for Reagan. Well as long as we are peddling in anecdotes, I know a number of people who are Huckabee supporters and none of them are excited in the least about Romney.

Folks, there isn't just some abstract "conservative" vote out there that Romney and Huckabee are splitting. All four of the GOP candidates are conservatives of one stripe or another. Ron Paul is a paleolibertarian Robert Taft conservative. McCain is a progressive traditionalist - a conservative in intuition and values rather than ideology - a virtue warrior rather than a culture warrior. Huckabee is a reformist anti-globalist social conservative. And Romney is a white bread technocrat institutionalist conservative. The conservatism of Huckabee is in spirit at least as different from the conservatism of Romney as it is from McCain or Ron Paul.

Medved notes:

To believe that Huck and Mitt are dividing conservatives, you have to believe that Huckabee is a conservative --- which Romney, Limbaugh, Igraham, and countless others have been denying (stridently and strenuously) for months. . . Either the elite commentators were wrong when they labeled Huckabee a “liberal populist,” or they are wrong now when they say he’s stealing conservative votes from Romney. The only other alternative is that they view conservative voters as just too stupid to see Huckabee for what he really is.

Patrick Ruffini writes:

The Romney campaign’s February 5th math is simple: move all the voters from the Huckabee pile onto theirs and claim a majority of conservatives. Unfortunately, it’s just not that simple.

To this Brainster replies:

What do you mean, not simple? Just move the pile! Now note what's not said at all; what the Huckabee pile is going to receive in return; one suspects that it's the chance to help Mitt Romney over the hump. Now of course, it should come as no news to anybody that Mike Huckabee isn't interested in this game. He has on many occasions expressed his admiration for Senator McCain, and his disdain for Mitt Romney.

And it's not just Huckabee who prefers McCain to Romney. Huckabee supporters seem to feel the same way. These numbers show three-fifths of Huckabee voters having a favorable view of McCain, while less than two-fifths have a favorable view of Romney.

Ruffini also notes the cultural and geographical difference in the Romney and Huckabee vote:

The problem with this analysis is that I’ve seen no evidence that Huckabee voters would go to Romney. On a county level, the Romney and Huckabee votes are negatively correlated, with Romney representing the conservative side of the Chamber of Commerce/Rotary Club vote and not really showing outsized strength with Evangelicals.

I've been looking at this sort of county level results at my new political geography blog. In states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina, Romney has done his best in the more urban areas, and Huckabee has done best in rural areas. McCain has done well in both urban and rural areas, among both lower and upper middle class, among both young and old. On a demographic level, it appears that McCain actually bridges the constituencies of the older and white-collar Romney voters and the younger and blue-collar Huckabee enthusiasts.

If we had excluded Huckabee from this race, its possible Fred Thompson could have gained some real ground in the Bible-belt deep South. But to expect that this would be the case for Romney is only slightly more realistic than the idea of Mormons voting en masse for Huckabee.

Is John McCain's nomination inevitable? No, it's not. It's possible that Romney will win the largest share of California's delegates. But McCain has locked up the Northeast (sans Massachusetts), and Romney looks like he's behind both McCain and Huckabee in every state south of the Mason-Dixon line or with a central time zone. Romney's road to the nominattion depends on a few closed caucuses along with his support from Money, Mormons, Michigan, and - maybe - Massachusetts. It's not impossible , but- as Anna Marie Cox points out*- it requires a bit of mental gymnastics.

*h/t ENHQ

Romney Robos In Favor of New Entitlement Spending

From J-Mart at Politico:

Mitt Romney's campaign is sending out automated phone calls to Florida Republicans attacking John McCain on taxes and Social Security, an aide to the former governor confirms.

A Florida Republican up in the Panhandle received a robo today suggesting he "take a hard look at John McCain's record."

"John McCain voted against the AARP-backed Medicare prescription drug program," the call notes, in an obvious effort to give seniors pause about the senator.

So let me get this straight - Romney, that supposed paragon of pure fiscal conservatism, is accusing McCain of voting against a massive new entitlement program?

And as for the AARP, I recall they were less than helpful when G W Bush was interested in reforming Social Security and allow for private investment instead of an IOU placed on a next generation of workers. If Mitt Romney had anything instructive to add to the conversation about policies for America's seniors, you think he might have shown up to the AARP forum in Iowa this past Fall. John McCain has not followed the AARP's political agenda, but that didn't keep him from engaging in the discussion with them along with Mike Huckabee.

One of the things I really admired about Fred Thompson's campaign is that he was willing to offer up a proposal to reform Social Security. Some former Fred-heads may think that Romney is now their man, but if you care at all about making the hard choices necessary for entitlement reform, I do not see how you can support Romney. He is using the same scare-tactics the Democrats have long used to impede any significant progress to relieve the fiscal burden the political establishment is content to leave on future generations of Americans.

New poll & mini film fest: When will Rudy drop out and endorse McCain ?

New poll question.
Back when his poll numbers were in double digits, Rudy was in the habit of saying this:



Well, now's your chance Rudy.

And just imagine, a few months back we were hearing rumors of this:



Hmm, interesting metaphor there Chris. Of course we all know how that story turned out.



Oh and Fred, when you get around to it, how about getting back to this:




. . . And finally, here's something for those whose participated in our last poll question: "What has been most annoying about FOX's GOP primary coverage ?"
Your response -

Writer's Strike Affects South Carolina FOX debates

At least it seems that way - Haven't we heard these questions before?

Haven't we heard so many of these answers before.

The Big News of the Day: Bush believes Palestinian/Israeli peace is close at hand, but gets short shrift from "moderators." (Can you call them "moderators" when they keep egging-on the candidates going against each other?) Rudy and Ron Paul are asked about it, but no one else.
Some discussion of Pakistan.

On the other hand, plenty of the old standards - Iraq, economy, immigration.

On economy, candidates talk like they think they are in Michigan.

Mitt thinks we can bring old jobs back from the dead, McCain wants to retrain workers for the economy of the future.

Thompson shows some spunk, can't get in enough criticisms of Huckabee.

Huckabee says if Reagan were running today, the Club for Growth would run ads against him.

Ron Paul starts out sensible, distances himself from 9-11 deniers, but can't seem for too long to keep himself from saying something Chomsky-esque.

John McCain gives incredible answer on whether Democrats can win on their Iraq position - how long can they campaign against the reality on the ground?

Rudy says Democrats idea of "change" is "change out of your pocket."

Romney references "Three Dimensional Chess," appearantly trying to steal the Trekkie vote from Ron Paul.

Immigration, amnesty, yada yada yada.
McCain ain't gonna deport a wife of an MIA soldier.
Thompson, on the other hand, ain't gonna look at folks individually.
Giuliani ain't gonna send kids out on the street, but he will end illegal immigration.

New Hampshire GOP Debate - the Principle Question

One question asked by Charles Gibson - which he freely admitted he stole from President Bush - at tonight's debate gave some insight into the core of the candidates.

What is the key principle(s) that will guide you as president?

The answer for Ron Paul and Fred Thompson: The Constitution (tradition, principles specific to Americans)

For John McCain and Mike Huckabee: The Declaration of Independence ("endowed by Creator" - principles universal to humanity)

For Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney: Here is what I plan get done . . .

Someone needs to remind Rudy and Mitt of the definition of the word "principle." It's not the same as an "agenda." If your only principle is your agenda - well that's a serious problem of having it backwards, at best.

taking Iowa for granite

sure Iowa and NH aren't exactly the same but is there anything that we can learn from Iowa's results? does this change the race there?

For starters, Iowans ultimately rejected the establishment candidates (Hillary and Mitt), and gave an unexpected level of support to the insurgent candidates Obama and Huckabee. In a result that was unthinkable just a few months ago, Ron Paul outperformed Giuliani by over 2 to 1. Certainly independents and young people played a big role for both Obama and Paul, coming out in numbers that were not anticipated by pollsters. Young and independent voters may come out in even greater numbers for New Hampshire, likely to buck the establishment there again. New England's independents, young people, and liberals are a natural constituency for Obama, so the Iowa win is likely to propel him further in New Hampshire. The beneficiaries of young and independent voters in New Hampshire for the GOP will be less predictable, and probably fall both to Ron Paul and McCain, unless others can make significant inroads.

The big word coming out of Iowa is "change." Hillary and Mitt are already trying to refashion themselves as the real agents of change for New Hampshire voters. It's not likely to work. Clinton and Romney already suffer from appearing stiff and inauthentic. Trying to reinvent themselves once more will feed into the perception of a chameleon politician who doesn't have any real core, especially as try to go after Obama and McCain - who have each built their entire political careers on a theme of reform.

What does each GOP candidates need to do to succeed in New Hampshire? It's been built up as showdown time between Romney and McCain. Indeed, it's hard to see how either one continues if they don't win here. But that doesn't mean either one will drop out if he finishes a close second. Both are still polling high in Michigan, so it might not be the end of the line. But in order to not win and still continue on, it has to be a very close second place.

A month ago McCain was tied in the polls with Giuliani for a very distant second place. Now he's polling right up with Romney at about 30 percent, while Romney's numbers have been basically stagnant. McCain's greatest strength has been his performance in town hall meetings, and to win he needs to keep that up and talk face to face to as many folks as he can. He's really good at that, and it's more meaningful than any television ad he could show. He also needs to keep Romney from dragging him into too much of a mud-fight. He needs to bring the discussion back to his own vision about what we owe America's future, and really demonstrate he's in a different league from Romney. Huckabee may not win over a lot of voters in New Hampshire, but Huckabee's clean campaign strategy will.

Romney has two options right now. He has to either 1) attract undecided voters or 2) keep them at home ( or send them to Giuliani or Obama) by planting doubts about McCain. If he wants to attract new voters, he has to demonstrate his personal side, talk about his own life and struggles, show he's human and not a political robot. His other choice is to continue to go negative against McCain, even if it drives independents away from himself . He can't do both - and if Iowa is any indication, he'll choose the latter, and it won't work there either.

For the other candidates it's not a matter of having to win, but to make a strong third finish.
Giuliani's support in the past month has eroded almost as quickly as McCain's has risen. His best chance for a rebound is if voters buy into Romney's negative ads against McCain without buying into Romney. Since Romney has also gone after Giuliani, this is not very likely. Rudy has been going down steeply, and with results just above Duncan Hunter in Iowa, it's more likely he'll come in behind both Huckabee and Paul than that he will signifcantly recover in the next few days.

Thompson is currently sixth in the polls in NH. Had he made an investment here earlier he might have done well. There are plenty of small government folks here who aren't followers of Ron Paul. He could have reached out to with his commitment to entitlement reform and a less energetic federal government. But it seems too late now.

Huckabee won't have a base of evangelical support like he did in Iowa, but he still could capitalize on his win there to make a strong third-place finish. New Hampshire Republicans are generally - like Huckabee - environmental conservationists, committed to gun rights - and could be very responsive to his call to abolish the income tax.

Finally, if Ron Paul is likely to make a splash anywhere, it will probably be in the "Live Free or Die" State. A strong third place finish here is very possible. While he almost certainly wont win a single state, he has enough funds and enthusiastic support that he wont drop for quite a while yet.

As for Duncan Hunter - if he came in that low in conservative/populist Iowa, I don't know how he expects to make any progress - it's time to pull out. If he's most interested in punishing illegal immigrants he should back Thompson. If he's most interested in stopping free trade he should back Huckabee. If he's most interested in starting WW4 with Iran and China he should back Giuliani. If he's not sure what's most important to him, he should follow Tancredo's lead and back Romney - and I'm betting he just might.

gratitude, not just apologies

Fred Thompson's recent "apology" to Mike Huckabee really brings up the whole issue of candidates being courteous to one another. It's about time the other candidates consider thanking Huckabee for what he's done for their campaigns so far. Here are some suggestions:

Mike, thanks for letting everyone know you think I'm awesome. Plus, thanks for being the punching bag of the supply-side fundies this time instead of me. - John

Huckster, thanks for being such an easy target for my attack ads. -Fred

Mike, you have succeeded in getting the media to focus on the debate about my religion instead of the debate about my record. I am forever grateful. - Mitt

Folks are no longer talking so much about me being anti-gun. Instead they're talking about you being anti-tobacco. Thanks, Mike. But one thing I don't get - I get Pat Robertson's endorsement, then all of a sudden all the evangelicals start flocking to you. What gives? - Rudy

quick thoughts on a debate with short answers

I just saw the re-airing on C-SPAN of this afternoon's Republican debate in Iowa.

Huckabee and Thompson appeared to have had the strongest performance, especially considering the absurdly short time-frames allowed for the candidates to answer questions.

Romney had that same ol' twinkle in his eye, but didn't come up with anything memorable to say. Having Alan Keyes there made for some liveliness, made Duncan Hunter seem mainstream.

Finally the candidates talk a little about education - I'll post more on that before too long. Plus more straight talk by McCain on farm subsidies vs. fiscal conservatism.

You can watch it here with real media player.