Sean of My Election Analysis chimed in with an interesting comment on Dave’s Huck-related post from last night:
…the last thing I would like to see the GOP do would be to become a fiscally center-left, socially conservative party (which is bass ackwards of how a government should be).
But I really think Dave underestimates the power of such a party. William Jennings Bryan after all came fairly close to winning the popular vote in 1896, and was within 8 points in 1900 against a successful wartime President. More importantly, the South and West have enormously increased their electoral heft, while northeastern states will have lost their heft (PA and MA will have lost half their EVs from that point after the 2010 census). This trend will only increase over the years. Bryan stil would have lost the electoral vote in 1896 under the current electoral distribution, but it would have been closer than the electoral drubbing he took then. Indeed, if you flipped IN, KY, ND and WV to his side (probably about right for a populist candidate today) you probably would have a Bryan victory.
Point is, I think you vastly underestimate how powerful such a fusion could be. You would lose the libertarian wing of the party (myself included), but would really threaten in groups that are naturally aligned with the GOP on social issues, but are turned off by the economic royalism as critics call it. I’m not sure which group is bigger, but I tend to think that the GOP could ultimately end up with the better of that argument.
A Huckabee/Clinton matchup would be truly fascinating. Clinton could actually be painted as the candidate of big business interests in that matchup, and in the current economic environment, I’m not sure that works to her advantage
To put it another way, what red states does such a candidate lose that Bush won? Maybe Virginia, maybe AZ, maybe CO, maybe NV. Don’t get me wrong, those states are enough to give a Democratic victory, but its not a very big one, and I’m not sure how a populist candidate plays out there. Maybe Florida too, I guess.
For my part, I find myself in the rare position of disagreeing with Dave, for I just cannot find in Mike Huckabee the kind of firebrand persona that is capable of molding a new Republican Party into something resembling the Democratic Party of the early 20th Century.
At the worst, Mike Huckabee would turn out to be simply more of the Big Government/Compassionate Conservatism of George W. Bush. I am simply not seeing William Jennings Bryan or perhaps Huey Long kind of personality that would be required to fashion such a sea change embodied in Mike Huckabee.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
mike huckabee is lame. in a general election he would win only the south.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
First time in 3 weeks I’ve actually agreed with Kavon. Huckabee is a nothing more than a dubya on steroids – more nanny statism, more social programs, more socialism disguised as Christian conservatism.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Mike Huckabee = the Republican version of Jimmy Carter, with a sense of humor
November 29th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Kavon is right…at worst he is another George W. Bush…I’m telling you Huck had to do what he did fiscally…90% of the State Government funding is for must have programs like Social Security and Medicare…plus he did sign the no tax pledge which means that if he did pull a bush 41 and raise taxes…he would be out after one term only…State Gov’t is run a bit differently than the Federal Gov’t…
November 29th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
“(which is bass ackwards of how a government should be)”
Sorry Kavon, but I have to call you out on this. I agree that the GOP (and the government) need to be socially Conservative, but if a country won’t protect the life of its future leaders, workers, etc., etc., and if it doesn’t recognize the importance of strong families, how can it continue to be a strong society?
You show me a socially liberal nation that is not running into serious problems right now.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Act Blog,
Those are Sean’s words.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
sorry, in that first sentence, “I agree that they need to fiscally conservative.
of course, the other part is still true.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
whoops…
sorry, I’m a little tired tonight.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Rett – Huck being another dubya is a problem!! That is not a compliment for the Huckster. As a fiscally conservative voter dubya has been dreadful and Huck would be even worse!!
November 29th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
One of my other problems with the Huck-Naysayers is that they discount his rhetoric on other critical issues such as health care. Which I believe are some of the most strongly held beliefs he has.
This is from my interview with Gov. Huckabee while spending the day with him on the campaign trail in Iowa this Summer:
There’s a whole lot for conservatives to like there.
I am not saying Gov. Huckabee is a perfect conservative. But I am saying that people should take a look at the totality of the man, his positions, and the circumstances of his tenure when making a final decision on him.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Huckabee is too soft on immigration for my liking. That, and it seems to me is a little too open to class-warfare rhetoric.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
But ACT Blog… Why do you care about Immigration and class warfare rhetoric when the “country won’t protect the life of its future leaders, workers, etc., etc., and if it doesn’t recognize the importance of strong families, how can it continue to be a strong society?“
Huckabee is the absolute, bar-none, most ardent Pro-Life candidate left in the 2008 race.
Why don’t you support him then if Abortion is the ultimate issue to you to the exclusion of all others?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Huck = a slicker version of GWB. Do you think Huck will really have the spine to stand up and veto all of the dems big government expansion bills (e.g., SCHIP) that will be sent to him as President? He even said he was disappointed that SCHIP didn’t pass!! The thought of having GWB jr in the white house makes my stomach churn.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I agree with Sean. I think, electorally, a socially conservative, fiscally populist party has potentially significant heft. I tend to believe that the South is considerably less fiscal conservative then the Mountain West, and likely could be easily turned into a socially conservative/populist haven. It would likely beat the current incarnation of the Democratic Party. But, I think soon enough the Democratic Party would scuddle back to DLC economics, and things would potentially complicate.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Huck is really the only viable Republican canidate that scares me. I like his groundness in his faith, but that’s about it. Watching him dodge questions and zip one liners makes me feel like he has no vision or plans for what he would do- except to spend spend spend when problems arise in Washington.
His oratory skills and facial expressions from the debate last night remind me so much of Bill Clinton that it’s scary.
Watching his campaign, I think he’s really picking up steam. Like I said I could support all the other top canidates, but if Giuliani were to fall b/c of social issues, Romney falls b/c of Mormonism, Thompson falls b/c of lack of enthusiasm, and if McCain falls b/c those who don’t love him hate him and that leaves Huck standing in the settling dust with him wide-eyed holding the nomination……I’m going to be really really really disappointed and even more scared.
Because we’ve got a guy who independents will most likely not vote for and even if he gets elected it’s going to be 4 more years of the Bush administration except more spending. And so conservatives will have to clean up our party again except it’ll be even 4 more years harder to do in the end.
Depressing….
He’s picking up steam….I’m just hoping it’s short lived
November 29th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
My call for Iowa: Huckabee 30%, Romney 26%.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
“Why don’t you support him then if Abortion is the ultimate issue to you to the exclusion of all others?”
Two reasons:
1) Abortion is not the top issue, though it is important. For me, abortion is one of a series of issues that can be the “deal breaker”
2) While Huckabee is strong on social issues, so is Romney – and Romney is stronger on other important issues, like immigration. Simply put, Romney is a better package than Huck.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I’m pleased that Kavon sees through the fiscal conservative hyperventilating.
Mike Huckabee was in a state that had a much smaller government than Massachusetts or New York City.
Huckabee still manged to trim $300 million when there was a budget shortfall. However Arkansas was a state with many needs and a relatively small government.
When the time came to balance the budget Huckabee faced the choice of cutting education, infrastructure or raising taxes.
In Washington DC Huckabee would not face such a devil’s bargain. There’d be more pork to cut than at a BBQ.
If Huckabee was elected I think he’d actually be slightly to the right of Bush on spending because Huckabee has disavowed new programs on the spending issues he’s most passionate about (Education, Medical Care). His populist rhetoric is the perfect general election style to rip away from Bush and confuse Democrats.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
If Huckabee is as weak on immigration as his record suggests, and if immigration is as important of an issue in Iowa as people suggest, than I have a hard time believing Huck can keep his momentum going once people start hearing about tuition for illegals, drivers licence for illegals, racist amnesty opponents, etc., etc.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Is it just me? Or does Mitt Romney look really uncomfortable talking about whether he believes in the Bible or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyl_BedV8KY
November 29th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
can we get these graphs up and running pronto:
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=483496
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=483499
November 29th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
#20 – Marcus, Anderson Cooper pressed him on the question again. I think Mitt and the others were thinking, “I can’t believe we are being asked these questions!”
November 29th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
10, yeah, a quick followup there mitt. how enthusiastically do you believe the Bible?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
sorry, my post was supposed to start with 20, not 10.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Marcus -
20:
The question wasn’t whether one believes in the bible or not, the question is whether one believes every word of the bible literally.
Just curious – does ANYONE believe literally EVERY WORD of the bible?
Mitt’s answer was simple – he believes the bible is the word of god. Period.
Give points to Huck and Rudy for expounding a bit on that, but it was a stupid question to go along with many stupid liberal slanted (or should I say planted) questions aimed at painting the GOP candidates as a bunch of backwood bible thumping, gun-toting, gay-bashing, confederate flag-waving rednecks.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Though I disagree strongly with Kavon’s analysis of Huckabee. I think he’s quite a bit more liberal then George Bush. I’d direct you to Jonah Goldberg’s thoughts on the issue; George Bush’s compassionate conservatism evolved as a means of harnessing his reputation as an “Evangelical”, combined with a perceived need to moderate conservatism, in the face of a relatively moderate Democratic candidate. It was largely a strategic decision; one gets the sense that, in contrast, Huckabee really believes this stuff. That all the sorts of awful things that continually come out of his mouth, when combined with his record, stem from deep convictions about the role of the government and it’s relationship to the governed. And that’s, to be overly kind, deeply problematic.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I believe literally every word of the Bible but I don’t literally believe every word of the Bible.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
20. Period.*
*Then comes:
I mean.. I.. I.. I.. um..uh..I.. might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
20
Stop hijacking threads. Post this in a debate related thread. Man complete idiots.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Huckabee is not a populist in the true, traditional sense of the word. By taffy-like modern definitions he may be construed as a populist because he:
1. Has transparent and sincere concern for the poor and economically vulnerable.
2. Favors some programs specifically designed for the poor and economically vulnerable
3. Is disgusted when CEOs bypass the market and give each other billions while their workers and shareholders lose.
4. Thinks Christianity ought to influence our economic decisions as well.
On the other hand, he diverges with traditional populists in these respects:
1. He does not believe in a “limited pie” theory of economics.
2. He does not demagogue wealth per se.
3. He does not seek to build up the poor by tearing down the wealthy.
4. He does not engage in the rhetoric of class warfare.
Anyone who confuses his sincere concern for the poor with class warfare is truly an economic royalist (let them eat cake!).
November 29th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
You nailed it MWS.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
And the #1 reason Huckabee is not a true populist in the traditional sense of the term:
He appeals to hope, not envy.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I can see a lot of Bush’s compassionate conservitism in Huck. I keep looking at Romneys 3 legged stool strategy. I know some antiRomney crowd hate this but…
Defcons- I think Rudy, Huck, Mitt, McCain and everyone of them (except Paul) are right on defense, homeland security, GWOT
SoCon- Huck and Romney are both social conservatives, but Huck is weak on immigration. Romney isnt. period
FiCon- Romney and Rudy are both strong here, as each understands limited government, and cutting taxes.
Thats my objective analysis of the candidates. Huck is like Rudy, he is too weak on one of the 3 legs important to me as a conservative.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Husky,
“Thats my objective analysis of the candidates.”
There’s no such thing.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
The other more obvious problem of Huck is this. He cant win the nomination. How does he think he can. I think that even if he wins IA, he wont win NH where Romney still leads by a mile. He still cant find the funds and organization to compete to win MI and NV, although he might pull out SC. Then FL and the bigger states. With a few wins under his belt, and possible a damaged Romney, Rudy will flex his muscles against Huck who is under funded and without the organization to win.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
MWS- I can be objective and see there are strengths in Rudy and Huck. I get that in many issues, they are where I, and Romney are. I would support either in the general. But I can also see that on a few issues that really matter to me (immigration, abortion, and a hand full of others), I dont see eye to eye with them.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
MWS,
“1. He does not believe in a “limited pie†theory of economics.
2. He does not demagogue wealth per se.
3. He does not seek to build up the poor by tearing down the wealthy.
4. He does not engage in the rhetoric of class warfare.”
Number 1 and 3 are plausible. But, he absolutely demagogue’s wealth and engages in class warfare rhetoric. How exactly would you label quotes like “I wasn’t born on third base”, or various references to people born with silver spoons in their mouths. He repeatedly refers to a strong fiscal conservative organization as the Club for Greed. And he insists that he’s going to work for “Main Street, not Wall Street”. That last quote in particular is the very definition of class warfare.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Furthermore, the entire CEO controversy is class warfare. Whether you believe CEO’s are outrageously compensated or not (and I do), using the issue for political purposes smacks of class warfare. This is especially the case if Huck doesn’t plan to do anything about these extreme salaries (I’ve yet to see his plan for solving the problem).
November 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
looking at the bright side of things. I guess the silver lining in having Huck catch Mitt in IA is that if Mitt wins, it will have been a challenge and not uncontested. I still think that Mitt wont be stopped and will win almost every state in the primary process (IF) he wins IA and NH. I think he would still have an outside shot if Huck won IA and Mitt won NH. It would take Rudy’s numbers down to earth, but it would make for a much tougher January if he didnt win IA.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I think Huck has a much better chance of getting the nomination thatn I thought earlier. He’s currently getting a lot of support from Evangelical Christians and momentum is on his side.
I’m curious though, why that support isn’t turning into money. I’ve looked at his site and he’s not really raking it in.
Anyways I’d say he has a better shot than McCain and Thompson right now and imo that’s unforunate.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
hmm…
I’d rather Romney look inevitable by winning IA and NH by a mile and deal with the “he was uncontested” bull than have him eek out a win and risk looking weak.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
T. ROOSEVELT VERSUS MARK HANNA ALL OVER AGAIN
This is a battle between the Teddy Roosevelt wing of the Republican Party (Huckabee) and the Mark Hanna wing (Romney).
Teddy Roosevelt:
(1) Constantly criticized the big-business wing of the Republican Party.
(2) Was called the “trust-buster.”
(3) Stated that “a thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.”
Mark Hanna was Roosevelt’s rival, and represented the establishment-wing of the Republican party.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Huckabee is a drama king. He does not reason and is lite on intelligence of the political kind.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
something to consider…
I think Huck got most of Brownbacks support in IA which had been around 10% or so at one point. I think that as Fred (always pro life savior of the GOP) Thompson faded, Huck has picked up some of that support too. Clearly his pro life position has earned him support from other pro life candidates (Thompson and Brownback) who are neither dynamic or electable. I would assume that many of these distrust Romney to some extent because he is a mormon. Following the IA caucus, or sometime shortly thereafter, Huck’s star will go dim too. I really hope that Mitt has given the mormon speech by then and that many of these pro life social conservatives give their support to Romney. I dont expect all, but I think many will, and this will be the difference to put mitt over the top.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
mnm, if the establishment wing of the Republican party is the one that believes government is not the answer to most of society’s problems then the establishment party must win. When government gets involved things go from bad to worse. Government is extremely inefficient and influenced by too many improper considerations (i.e., politician wants to direct money to his friends and companies that donate to him). Live free or die! (kudos to the New Hampshirites that aren’t falling for this warmed over Republican version of Jimmy Carter)
November 29th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
dblagent007
I agree with statements like: “Government is not the answer to people’s problems.” And they are fine for debate. But they do not help much in running a government. Read David Stockman’s book THE TRIUMPH OF POLITICS. It is about an fiscally conservative ideologue who was frustrated with fiscal policy in the REAGAN administration being too “liberal.” Reagan, like Huckabee, had to run a government. As President, Huckabee will be as fiscally conservative as politics permits, just like any of the other Republican contenders.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
[...] Kavon and Sean have both taken me to task over my views on the damage that a Huckabee nomination would do to the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and to the country. Both make interesting points, but ultimately, I can’t agree with either of them. Here’s what Kavon has to say about my recurring theory that Mike Huckabee is a modern-day William Jennings Bryan who will crucify the GOP on a cross of gold: For my part, I find myself in the rare position of disagreeing with Dave, for I just cannot find in Mike Huckabee the kind of firebrand persona that is capable of molding a new Republican Party into something resembling the Democratic Party of the early 20th Century. [...]
November 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Families are not something to be “managed” by “it takes a village to raise a village idiot” politicians. Families are the ultimate personal issue. Even if you want a village to raise your child, you can interact voluntarily with the inhabitants. Unless, for some reason, you want a village which will force you at gunpoint to let them raise your child. It seems an odd thing to want.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Thank you Kavon for your objective analysis.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Matthew,
“But, he absolutely demagogue’s wealth and engages in class warfare rhetoric. How exactly would you label quotes like “I wasn’t born on third baseâ€, or various references to people born with silver spoons in their mouths. He repeatedly refers to a strong fiscal conservative organization as the Club for Greed. And he insists that he’s going to work for “Main Street, not Wall Streetâ€. That last quote in particular is the very definition of class warfare.”
The third base and silver spoon comments don’t qualify because Huckabee is simply engaging in the age old log cabin story of presidential contenders who grew up poor and made it in the world. If Steve Forbes were born to poverty, it would have been included in his stump speech. Huck is not blaming people’s poverty on others’ wealth here, he is simply stating “I understand you better than they do, because I have been where you are.” That’s all.
As for the “Club for Greed,” Huckabee considers himself unjustly singled out and attacked by this organization, and considering they went after him in Feb. when he was in Hunter and Tancredo’s polling territory, I think he’s justified. As for the “greed,” I think that stems from the idea that the CFG seems to care about nothing but tax cuts, particularly at the top end. Supporting tax cuts is not inherently “greedy” but only caring about tax cuts is. Regarding Wall Street and Main Street, he is not saying that one must succeed at the expense of the other (that would be- by definition- class warfare), he is telling people that he will have the interests of average Americans in mind- as the powerful already have enough people looking out for them. There is no class warfare in that.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Huck is going to win IA. Just accept the fact and don’t distort his record!