Per Gallup:
Although Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin lead the field of potential Republican presidential candidates among all Republicans nationwide, there are significant differences in candidate preferences when Republicans are divided by the issue they think is most important. Those focused on government spending and power are most likely to favor Huckabee or Romney, while those focused on the economy favor Romney or Palin. Republicans who say social and moral values are most important favor Huckabee or Palin.
I am not a huge Huckabee fan but it is interesting to note that he performs best when you look at the poll in total. A general election can not be won on a single issue and Huckabee seems to have his support spread out well. The question just remains…will he get in?
____________________________________________________________________________
Steve’s latest post at My Lyceum: The Authentic Adam Smith
February 25th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I hope he gets in. There’s no other way to expose the man for what he is….but during the process of doing so, he will make it more difficult for someone better to emerge and challenge Romney—the man we need to nominate to beat Obama and fix the country.
BTW, I hope Sarah gets in as well, and pretty much for the same reasons.
February 25th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Odd that Huckabee does so well with “government spending and power”, since Huckabee is the biggest tax & spender of the bunch.
February 25th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
The word ‘strength’ applied to Huckabee is silly. I hope he gets in as well. It will be fun to read story after story about how the ‘frontrunner’ posts some of the worst fundraising numbers of all time while also gaining no major endorsements from any top conservatives. How many nominees have had A) no money, and B) no endorsements???
February 25th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Exactly Steve.
And here is why.
Huck not only had a great record in Arkansas but approval numbers in the mid 60?s during and after. He’s not running away from THAT great support.
He is running on what was accomplished IN TOTALITY as a 10 1/2 year Governor while facing a legislature with 89 Democrats out of 100 legislators in the House and only four Republicans in the 35-seat Senate.
Yet, Huckabee found a way to govern for over 10 years, and didn’t just quit on his constituents after only two or four, and as I said above, left the state with amazing high approval ratings that still exist to this very day and have now gone national.
The Governor’s strong record:
* Cut the state capital gains tax rate by 25%.
* Abolished capital gains taxes on home sales.
* Abolished the state marriage penalty tax.
* Pushed a $90 million tax cut package through the Arkansas legislature in 1997.
* From 1995 to 2005, cut taxes 90 times, returning nearly $400 million to taxpayers.
* Indexed income tax brackets to inflation, thus protecting taxpayers from being pushed into higher tax brackets by inflation.
* Doubled the child-care tax credit.
* Increased the tax deduction for single individuals to $2,000.
* Increased the tax deduction for married couples to $4,000.
* Proposed cutting the executive branch from 50 departments to 10.
* Banned illegal aliens from getting drivers licenses.
* Reduced state welfare enrollment by nearly half.
* Helped pass an unborn child amendment to the state constitution.
* Helped pass a traditional marriage amendment to the state constitution.
* Pushed through a property owners’ bill of rights that limited property tax hikes and protected homeowners from unfair tax assessments.
* Pushed through homeschooling-friendly legislation.
* Limited the increase in the overall rate of state spending to 4.9% (AFI)–not bad, considering that he was dealing with a Democratic legislature.
* Protected gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.
* Removed restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders.
* Pushed through legislation that allowed the state to fire school boards and school superintendents in school districts that were chronically performing badly.
* When faced with a $227 million deficit for fiscal year 2002, refused to call for a tax increase and instead called for a massive cut in state spending.
Now, who would not run on THAT!
And let me add this to Governor Huckabee’s accomplishments among 100?s of others…
–Eliminated the state income tax for families below poverty level.
- Cut welfare rolls by 50%.
- Led efforts to establish the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and a Property Taxpayer Bill of Rights for uniform notice and due process.
- Made the interstate road system in Arkansas one of the best in the nation, where it had been among the worst, bringing in more trucking and trade. And the small tax the voters raised was repealed once the roads were complete.
-Carried out 16 executions in his time as governor of Arkansas which refutes his opponents’ claims that he’s soft on crime.
- Signed a ban on partial birth abortion.
- Worked to grant school administrators more flexibility in hiring and firing poor teachers.
- Moved Arkansas from grade “F” to a “C” in Charitable Choice compliance so Arkansas was only one of twelve states to pass.
- Balanced the state budget of Arkansas every year he was governor in Arkansas.
- AND left his state with almost $1 billion surplus, a state record.
February 25th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Dave Says:
February 25th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
“I hope he gets in. There’s no other way to expose the man for what he is”
===
Romney Van Winkle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IJsiBHYTFg
February 25th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/romney-van-winkle/
February 25th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
“But since 84 percent of Republicans want ObamaCare repealed, the fact that he paved the way for ObamaCare is causing problems for Romney among the party faithful.”
Guess that’s why Romney leads among those who consider themselves Tea Party members then, huh?
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ycfek9yay0kqnl-osystbw.gif
February 25th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Mike Huckabee to Chris Matthews “You’re off your med’s” ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFX8GIGgu-k
February 25th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Craig,
Your constant equating of ObamaCare with MassCare will progressively fool fewer and fewer people. As that happens, your limited powers of persuasion will approach ZERO as all credibility is lost.
During the campaign, Mitt will have ample opportunity to educate the relatively small, retail-politics early states about the differences between them, and the Huckster will also lose credibility on the issue.
But the main reason Huck won’t win Iowa this time is that he doesn’t wear well.
February 25th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
7.
CF,
Thanks.
Looks like he’s tied with Huck among the Tea Party supporters.
But Huck leads everyone among Non-Tea Partiers
February 25th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Dave Says:
February 25th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
“But the main reason Huck won’t win Iowa”
===
Didn’t you say that before Huck clobbered your guy by nine points in Iowa last time?
February 25th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
chuck’s only strength is the massive gravitational pull that pulls his fat lard butt toward earth.
February 25th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
12. I think you’re looking for this site:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
..to post that.
February 25th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
This is a strong poll for Romney, not Huckabee. Of the four categories, Romney’s two best are considered the two most important for every single category listed. Unless priorities shift, Romney leads on the issues most important to Americans.
February 25th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
14.
When Huckabee is leading 21 to 15 among conservatives over Mitt & Sarah, you can’t say it’s not a strong poll for Huck.
Especially for the primaries when they are the ones most likely to flood the poll booths or caucus rooms.
February 25th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Andv Huck not only leads slightly in the “most” important issue of spending & government power, he’s miles and miles ahead of everyone in the social and moral issues category.
February 25th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
“AND”
February 25th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
I care about Social issues, but the rest of the population doesn’t put it as the number one issue. Romney leads the candidates among the fiscal issues in the poll.
February 25th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Sorry Craig. Huck is one of those people that I just don’t trust. He gives me the willies. I don’t like to bash fellow Republicans, especially if he/she may be our nominee, but Huck is an exception. I have very favorable opinions of most of the other possible candidates including Palin, but Huck stands out as a charlatan, at least to me. Your multiple force-fed comments do nothing to help either.
February 25th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
19,
CHARLATAN? What are you stupid? I’m not meaning to demean you here but give me a break. Use a different word.
charlatan-A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.
Hmmm…governor for 10 1/2 years. But he doesn’t have any skill or knowledge? Yeah right. At least Huck got re-elected. Had romney been man enough to run for re-election he would have got creamed. He knew it, and decided that he was going to run for president. He doesn’t deserve our support.
February 25th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
WS,
Bobinator has been a lost cause since day one here. He’s got something personal against Huck. No clue what it is.
But he bashes Huck not on the issues but in a personal way.
February 25th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Craig, you are right. I am a lost cause, and it is personal, or more accurately personality and temperment. Obviously I don’t have major policy differences with Huckabee. It is his demenor, pettieness, and childish behavior that grates on me.
February 25th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
I do take exception to one thing, I don’t “bash” Huck, I just voice my distain. Unlike the Romney detractors here I don’t constantly lobby against him, put up negative links, etc.
February 25th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
#4: Huckabee cut some taxes, and raised taxes, including the income tax, sales tax, and increased taxes on tobacco, cigarettes, cigars, drinks, and gasoline.
Here’s Huckabee’s real record.
*Raised to sales tax $377 million in 2004.
*By the end of his ten year term, sales taxes were 37% higher.
*Fuel taxes and cigarette taxes were 16% higher.
*Earned a grade of D from the free-market CATO Institute.
*Government spending under Huckabee increased 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation.
February 25th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Poll performance, shmoll performance.
Ask yourselves, why isn’t Huck and/or Romney announcing they’re running. BEACUSE THEY AIN’T RUNNING. They will NEVER announce — and I’ll wager anyone here on that. Case closed.
BTW, here’s the simple reason why. Huck is waiting for Palin to go first clearly because if she’s in, he’s out (and he already figured she’s running which is why he bought his big house/moving to FL.) And, Romney knows his ONLY chance vis a vis Palin is for Huck and Palin to split their votes. So, since Huck is waiting for Palin, and when there IS officially Palin announcing, Huck is out, meaning Romney will never announce.
Again, case closed — otherwise Huck and/or Ronmney would have announced by now — ad I’ve now expained exactly why they are waiting.
…and in the meantime Palin’s having all the fun, toying with the lib media and GOP elites which HAVE NOTHING TO REPORT (everyone’s just waiting for Palin, while the Daniels’, Christy’s etc. are touted in the “anybody but Palin” game)
February 25th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
24.
Huck raised taxes and Romney raised 100′s of millions in FEES and taxes through the closing of MA loopholes.
But you know, when you throw taxes, fees, and spending into a big state blender, you get this:
Tax Freedom date in Arkansas during Huckabee’s 10-year tenure as governor started and ended on April 21st. Between 1996 and 2006, the Tax Freedom date in Arkansas moved back as much as 10 days earlier.
Huckabee = Net Zero Days
For further comparison, the Tax Freedom date in Massachusetts under Romney’s single term as governor (2002-2006) moved from April 24th to May 4th! Taxpayers had to work 10 days longer for Romney by the end of his term!
Romney = +10 Days
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22328.html
I also have a chart that shows on a per year basis that Governor Huckabee’s spending increases were slightly less than Governor Romney’s when you look at 10 1/2 years versus Mitt’s only four and out.
February 25th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Jack Says:
February 25th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
“Poll performance, shmoll performance.
Ask yourselves, why isn’t Huck and/or Romney announcing they’re running. BEACUSE THEY AIN’T RUNNING. They will NEVER announce — and I’ll wager anyone here on that. Case closed.”
===
I’ll take that bet. Are you old enough to gamble?
February 25th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Craig, again, it’s quite simple, WHY HASN’T ROMNEY ANNOUNCED YET???
… or stated another way, WHAT EXACTLY IS HE WAITING FOR???
By answering that question, you get the result — meaning Romney will never announce he’s running.
February 25th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Jack, Romney has no concern over Palin’s plans. I am surprised you have such insider information about Romney’s thought process. Would you introduce me to him? I would love to meet him.
He has not announced yet because he is smart and doesn’t want to peak too early like ’08. I assure you, Palin is NO factor in his decision.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:14 am
Maybe the potential candidates are waiting to see how the dollar fares in the next few months–things could get messy very quickly if our creditors tire of holding our notes.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Craig for Huck
Isn’t it telling that Huck’s book is entitled ” A Simple Government “? If the book reflects his grasp of the subject, we know all we need to know…..because he told us. Anybody who thinks the United States with 330 million people is ” a simple government “……is indeed ” simple.” It’s like saying Arkansas, which Perot called a general store, is as simple as California and New York. Yes, those states are incredibly screwed up…..as is the Federal Government. Partly, perhaps mostly, because the challenges in each state far exceed the management grasp of the managers. Complex problems do not often respond to simple solutions. Haven’t we learned that ? The problem is that the managers we have hired at the state and Federal level are not too bright. They only understand simple solutions. It’s not as if they really grasp how complicated problems are and have divined a simple solution. They only see the simple alternative. They are intellectual dimwits and we can’t afford to keep electing people using this political grade dilution. Today’s management ” A ” is yesterdays ” C “. The solutions that worked for Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln won’t work in today’s world with today’s problems. I read Huck’s book. His platitudes are historic and his biases endemic. He doesn’t get it and his ” solutions ” are simplistic, paper thin and absent gravitas. He is a classic ” one ballooner ”
CraigS
February 26th, 2011 at 10:22 am
The case against Mike Huckabee
Chris Cillizza, of the Washington Post, continued his series of the pros and cons of prospective GOP candidates in 2012 with this entry on the compelling case against Mike Huckabee to win the nomination.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/case-forcase-against/the-case-against-mike-huckabee.html?wprss=thefix
Briefly, his points, in his own words (modestly edited), are:
1. A (non) organization man: Huckabee hasn’t built any larger-scale campaign operation much beyond the spartan group he relied on in 2008. While his non-formal organization worked in Iowa, it also ensured that he could not capitalize on the momentum his caucus win should have created for him. Huckabee flailed in New Hampshire, narrowly missed a win in South Carolina and was helpless to match the efforts of former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in Florida. Huckabee’s unwillingness to build that sort of operation heading into 2012 means that even if he could pull off another Iowa caucus win, he would likely fail to capitalize on it. Again.
2. Money matters: Huckabee’s unwillingness or inability to put together a serious organization is his unwillingness or inability to put the pieces in place to raise the tens of millions he would need to compete seriously. In 2008, Huckabee raised $16 million for his campaign, a sum that was dwarfed by the likes of Romney, McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. While Huckabee’s communications skills allowed him to excel in retail campaign states like Iowa and, to a lesser extent, South Carolina, he was non-competitive in larger states — Florida, for one — where millions were needed to reach voters on the airwaves. If the the race goes beyond the first three states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Huckabee looks almost certain to watch as he is drastically outspent by rivals more committed to the cash collection process. Again.
3. The pardon problem: Huckabee’s pardon commutation of the sentence of Maurice Clemmons, a man who murdered four police officers in Seattle, Washington in 2009, is a major problem. Huckabee either pardoned or commuted the sentences of more than 1,000 people — more than three time as many as the state’s three previous governors combined. That’s an opposition researcher’s dream.
4. Fiscal conservative?: Huckabee’s fiscal record has rankled many leaders in fiscal conservative circles; the CATO Institute gave Huckabee an “F” in its 2006 fiscal policy report card — one of only two Republican governors to earn that “distinction”. The influential Club for Growth, too, made clear its antipathy toward Huckabee in the last election when it spent more than $500,000 attempting to stop his momentum in Iowa. Huckabee did raise taxes — including the sales tax — during his time as governor and, while he rightly notes it was done with bipartisan support and led to a budget surplus in the state, that may not satisfy die-hard fiscal conservatives. Huckabee faced relatively little scrutiny on his tax record during the 2008 primary fight but it would almost certainly be prime fodder for his opponents this time around.
5. A “serious” hurdle: Huckabee made his name during the last presidential race with his sunny demeanor and his comedic timing. But, a winning smile and a terrific personality alone won’t get you elected president. While it’s an indisputable fact that Huckabee has high favorable numbers among voters, real questions remain as to whether there is a difference between liking him and believing he can be president. (Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin may well face a similar problem if she runs in 2012 too.) Huckabee, then, must walk a tight rope — stay true to the optimistic funny man that proved so winning in 2008 while also showing people that he is ready and able to be the leader of the free world. Huckabee is an able politician but that may be too difficult a challenge even for him.
Now, my comments:
Sounds like the beginning of internal messaging sessions for his potential competitors. In IA first, and then in SC, candidates like Pawlenty, Barbour, Gingrich, and Santorum are going to have to go after Huck’s base in order to survive. (In fairness, they will have to come after Romney’s base in NH, if for no other reason than that it is the largest.) They will spend tens of millions of dollars each to undermine Huck and to recast him. For that matter, if he were the nominee, Obama would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do the same thing. And Cillizza’s point is that Huck will have minimal organization and money with which to respond.
Huck’s strength in 2008 was using the pre-existing social networks (church and home school) to go “viral”. Those networks took decades to build. They are incredibly cohesive, and that made them very effective at coalescing around a single candidate. But they are also incredibly insular, sticking mostly to others like themselves, culturally, geographically, and demographically. Cillizza’s point about how to make it work after SC goes to these points. While candidates have a year to lay the groundwork for the first four contests, thereafter the campaign accelerates in both time and money. As a result, the candidate is favored who has the most money and the most effective organization, or the most flexible and nimble.
Since the previous four contests have already winnowed out the marginal and superficial players, the remaining candidates can no longer survive on niche constituencies or geographies. The candidate has to move beyond cohesive constituencies to adhesive constituencies. (I just made that metaphor up, remembering what my chemistry prof taught me about the properties of cohesion and adhesion.)
I would add one other point to the five Cillizza raises: The Issues.
Not only must each candidate fight the battles on the geographic battlefields dictated by the primary calendar, they must also fight it on the battlefields of the issues the electorate feel are most compelling. Huck continues to fight on the battlefields of social issues. Witness his dressing down of Mitch Daniels on suggesting a “truce” on social issues while we solve the economic ones, as well as calling out the President over the non-defense of DOMA. During the 2010 cycle, Huck built his network out with candidates and supporters who were unapologetic values warriors. That identity makes him genuine for SoCons, but leaves the remaining voters suspicious at best.
As we move into 2012, if those issues drive the political conversation nationally, especially as the electoral calendar moves larger from Super Tuesday and into the general election, then Huck is in good shape. But, if as polls continue to show, the conversation is about jobs, taxes, deficits, and size of government, Huck will not be seen as an authentic voice or candidate. Expect Pawlenty, Barbour, Gingrich, and Santorum to drive a wedge in the SoCons to say that while all five of them are fight authentic SoCons, one of them other than Huck is the real deal for economic issues.
If and when Romney comes after Huck, expect him to choose those issues as the battlefield he wants to fight the fight on.
Ric Pugmire
February 26th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Nice copy and paste job, Ric.
The day before, no one even bothered to copy and paste “the case for”, by the same hack writer.
Because in both cases, it was the same old worn out nonsense.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
31.
Wow, you sure have issues questioning Huck’s intelligence.
Classic Rombot attitude about Huck. Always underestimating him, always losing to him.