So Much for Huckabee's Dark-Horse Campaign
It’s tempting to compare Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign to Jimmy Carter’s in 1976.
Both men, personable and devoutly Christian former governors from small southern states, began in total anonymity, only to navigate their way in dogged fashion to the head of crowded primary packs.
In Mr. Carter’s case, the momentum carried him all the way to the Democratic nomination and the presidency, a feat that made him the patron saint of all future White House long shots from both parties—Mr. Huckabee included.
While Mr. Huckabee is still a long way from the G.O.P. nomination, he has moved into the lead in Iowa and is running a close second (just six points behind Rudy Giuliani) in a recent national poll. No Republican’s stock has risen more dramatically this year, and there’s no sign—yet—that he’s crested.
Like Mr. Carter, Mr. Huckabee is blessed with an unusually flawed collection of primary rivals, which has made voters more receptive to other voices. And just like Mr. Carter, he is banking on a breakout showing in Iowa.
But there’s one crucial difference that’s going to make it extremely difficult for Mr. Huckabee to pull off an out-of-nowhere victory: we’re on to him.
Since independent polling was relatively rare and only marginally reliable back in 1976, Mr. Carter was able to maintain his dark horse status right up until the voting started. The polls that were released tended to focus on the national race, and not early primary states, masking Mr. Carter’s growing strength in Iowa and New Hampshire throughout 1975, and maximizing the value of his “surprise” showings in both states.
But Mr. Huckabee’s cover has been blown. A half-dozen new independent polls, it seems, are released every week, surveying opinion in every pocket of the country and within every conceivable demographic niche. At this point in 1975, there was chatter that Jimmy Carter might end up turning heads in the early states. But in 2007, there is enough quantitative proof for members of the media, as ABC’s George Stephanopoulos did on Sunday, to declare Mr. Huckabee “the new front-runner in Iowa.”
That designation, a month before any votes are cast, is a mixed blessing, to say the least. It aids his ability to raise funds, attract media coverage, and draw crowds to his events, just as it boosts his poll numbers elsewhere. But he is also subject to a type and intensity of media coverage that was missing in 1976, when there weren’t 24-hour cable news channels and Web sites devoted to tracking every nuance of the campaign.
That means there are more chances for Mr. Huckabee to stumble, and that the impact of any mis-step will be amplified with an immediacy that didn’t exist in 1976. The uproar over Mr. Huckabee’s admission to a reporter—for an on-line publication—that he hadn’t seen the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran this week is a good example. There’s also a risk of over-exposure: Will the novelty of Mike Huckabee wear off too soon?
Another difference is that every candidate competes in just about every primary and caucus now. Sure, some—like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in Iowa—might de-emphasize a state or two, but anyone who wants to run for President in this era has to enter the race at least a year ahead of time and find a way to win early in the process.
It wasn’t this way when Mr. Carter ran. In fact, he was considered something of a curiosity by the press when he insisted throughout 1975 that he planned to compete in all 31 primaries and caucuses scheduled for 1976. Until then, most candidates developed nomination strategies that involved formally entering the race late, demonstrating strength in a select few primary states (often late in the process), and then dealing with the party’s power-brokers for bundles of critical delegates heading into the convention. There were fewer primaries and caucuses in ’76, and—unlike today—candidates were hardly declared dead by the media if they went more than two weeks without posting a win.
In fact, Hubert Humphrey and Ted Kennedy were both considered the Democratic “front-runners” for much of the ’76 campaign, even though neither ever entered the race. And other candidates, like Idaho Senator Frank Church and California Governor Jerry Brown, waited until April and May—months after New Hampshire and Iowa—to even enter the race, each calculating that there would be a brokered convention. (Church won a handful of Western states and Mr. Brown ended the primary season with five wins—including in New Jersey and California.)
But Mr. Carter was ahead of the times. Virtually alone, he set up shop in Iowa, and when he finished with 27 percent of the caucus vote in mid-January (behind “uncommitted” but well ahead of any human being) the media deemed it an encouraging sign for his campaign—if not the earth-shattering event it would now be billed as. Six weeks later, he won the next contest, in New Hampshire, where—again—he’d invested more heavily than anyone else. For the rest of the primary season, Mr. Carter won at least one primary or caucus every Tuesday. There were more primaries and caucuses than ever before in 1976—and Jimmy Carter was the first to discover how, with the media playing it up, one victory so easily leads into the next.
Now, every Republican candidate is acutely aware of how strong an Iowa win would make Mr. Huckabee. And that means that he’s dealing with something else that Jimmy Carter avoided until well in 1976: mud. Mitt Romney is calling him names and condemning him in mailers across Iowa, and an intense smear campaign has been launched against Mr. Huckabee by conservatives who are either sympathetic to other candidates or just suspicious of his un-conservative immigration and economic views.
If Jimmy Carter had to contend in December 1975 what Mike Huckabee is facing in December 2007, he might not have made it past New Hampshire. Dozens of candidates have been compared to Jimmy Carter since 1976. But the only one ever to win with his strategy is…Jimmy Carter.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 47.7
- 43.8
- Obama +3.9
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 54.3
- 34.4
- +19.9
- McCain
- 51.7
- 36.3
- +15.4
How can you expect Huckabee to know about the NIE report when he was asked about it less than 12 hours it was released and when he spent all day with supporters? I know the media likes to make a big debacle out of nothing, but I expect better than that from the Observer.
And don't be too quick to dismiss Huckabee. Last month people were saying he was peaking and was going to only go down from there. Now, according to Rasmussen, he is leading the nation, Iowa, and South Carolina.
I can't recall a candidate for president that is more shallow and unprepared as Mr. Huckabee. His sense of humor and well rehearsed delivery lines can only take him so far.
You can fool some of the people........
Mike Huckabee is a man of integrity. He has proven to be both Intelligent and Deligent. I would hire his skills if I wanted a great return with a small amount of money to invest.
Mike Huckabee has my vote!
When Mike wins the Primaries, there are those who will still say.. "golly gee, I think he's peaked, he can't go any further" Some will never believe just like some actually think the earth just blew itself up into existence.
Huckabee will almost surely wilt under the newfound attention. His primary opponents will not be able to leave alone the obvious lies he's told about promoting the parole of a convicted rapist who went on to murder and rape at least one other woman.
And while his refusal to allow a pregnant teenager who was raped by her stepfather to have a publicly-funded abortion may play well with the psycho-right wing, it will spell doom if he's the nominee, as will his insistence that God created the world 6,000 years ago and that evolution is wrong and should not be taught in science classes.
Huckster's personal greed, as evidenced by the famous "bridal registry" his wife set up--30 years after their marriage!--so that political cronies could skirt the law and present them with gifts for their private home before he left office, his penchant for misuse of campaign funds, and his insistence that the state pay for improvements on his private property will all get a good airing.
Thsi guy is a total phony and a nincompoop. Which make shim odds-on to be the Republican nominee!
Wake up Republicans! Huckabee does not have a chance to beat Hillary or Obama. Plus, we do not need another governor from Arkanas. Rudy is our best canidate.
Huckabee is too moderate for the GOP establishment (mostly east coast and beltway Republicans) when it comes to...guess what...compassion! Yes, he raised taxes when it was needed. He gave opportunities to the children of illegal immigrants rather than despise them. He pardoned a rapist who had already been castrated by vigilantes (something he regrets now). Huck will own up to all this, admit if he made a mistake or acted in excess. But the establishment Republicans,always embarassed by their "hick" cousins, the values voters of the south and the flyover country, are doing a hit job on Huckabee, through Drudge, FOX, the Weekly Standard, and National Review. They'd sell their souls for a bowl of tax cut porridge, so nothing new here. But Huck will weather the storms and win in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida, and the march will continue...ultimately against Obama. These two will be elected because they are more forthright and do not look like waffling weasels, like Romney, who was against abortion before he was for it and then against it again.
As soon as the public realizes how many prison sentences were commuted under Governor Huckabee's watch in Arkansas, he will begin tank. In today's world, a "creampuff" on crime isn't going to cut it. Can you image what HillBill will do to him on this subject alone if he became the nominee - can you say Willie Horton?
"Both men, personable and devoutly Christian former governors from small southern states"
Is Georgia a "small southern" state? Or Arkansas for that matter. Did the writer mean to say that they are from small southern towns? Just curious...
I, for one, can blame him for not knowing about the NIE, and it makes him look BAD.
When you are a "serious" candidate, you need to have a full-time staff devouring the news every day, and bringing important events to your immediate attention. Even if your day is full, you need to have people who can pull you aside between pancake flips and say "you need to know about this." A good staff will do more than just tell you what happened: they will analyze it, get more info from experts, and give you a policy brief so you can answer questions about it. Huck didn't have that.
What's more, the NIE is something a Presidential candidate ABSOLUTELY needs to know about. There is no more serious task for the Commander in Chief than defending the nation, and one of the most important facets of that is understanding how intelligence works. It is something you can pick up on the job once elected. You had damn well better know something about it before you are sworn in, because disaster can happen in your first days in office.
Look at Reagan with the Iranian hostages: the Iranians knew that Reagan would be ready to act the moment he was sworn in, and they responded accordingly. Look at GWB: he faced the Chinese capture of one of our P-3 aircraft just weeks into his administration, then had 9/11 months later. Thank God he had a staff around him that actually knew about these things.
Huck has no knowledge of national security. Worse, he has no staff capable of prepping him on national security. GWB may not have had much real experience in the matter, but at least he was able to surround himself with experts long before he was even elected. Huck? He just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and thinks that's good enough.
Maybe pre 9/11. But sure as hell not post 9/11. Give me someone like Thompson or Giuliani or even Duncan Hunter: men who are immersed in national security. Huck? No way, no how.
If you want more war, more government, more taxes and a falling dollar, Rudybee McRomney is your guy. If you want your country back, voe Ron Paul. The only man who can honestly say that he wasn't for it before he was against it.
All the rest flip flop like fish out of water. None have the record like Ron Paul. Look it up before you criticize me. It's nice to be right "now" but I prefer someone who was right the first time.
Beware of nincompoop Republican presidential nominees. They are president for 8 years.
Recall Reagan and GW Bush?
Recall non-nincompoops Ford and GHW Bush and Dole?
Reagan a nincompoop,,?
You're an asshole
The more I read about this guy, the more revolting he gets: a bible-thumper, health fascist, _and_ a tax&spender all in one package. And running as a Republican.
Yuck.
Romney is the only one of all that has the real smarts and ability to really help us and our problems in this glorious country. Romney has the desire to help the poor and the middle class. Only he has the greatness to make us better.
Please really check him out. don't listen to all the negative you hear on TV. those folks know that Romney would win and do a great job.
Let's at least learn about the real man.
It is sad to hear that some of you have drank the mainstream media's kool-aid. The Huffington Post lies about what Huckabee's senior aide Butch Reeves said about this now-famous meeting between Huckabee and the parole board regarding the Wayne Drummond case. He backs up what Huckabee says to the "t". Read it and weep. But that's okay, the mainstream media will ignore this and create more crap against Huckabee and the other candidates. Don;t investigate what really happened. Just go to sleep and listen to the mainstream media.
Huckabee is a liberal spender, no? Talk to Dick Morris, Michael Medved or the US Chamber of Commerce (for starters)about that and they will laugh at it. Shockingly, even the New York Times wrote an article that showed Romney increased taxes more compared to Huckabee's record which went up 1.1% in 10 years. Now that's a tax increase I can accept! Please, research the facts and stop drinking what the media gives to you. There sole goal is to distort, confuse and create conflict so that they can sell more and grab more attention.
As far as the NIE report, I don't blame him for not knowing all the contents. It is convoluted, confusing and has no answers about anything. Four months ago, one of the main authors of this report emphatically said Iran was building their nuclear program and it was irrefutable. Now, he says they have magically stopped from all the huge international pressure. What a joke! All Iran has to do is BRIBE Russia and France again like Saddam did so that they will block any UN resolutions. You really think Iran cares about their international standing and pressure when they are sending mercs accross their border into Iraq and everyone knows it? There are more caveats about the caveats in this document that you and I might have written this report.
It's okay though. Believe what you want.
Romney is the only one with the abilities and experience to win. I doubt Huckabee has ever seen a real frothing at the mouth socialist liberal down there in Arkansas. Romney has been in the trenches with Massachusetts liberals he knows how to get our interests past the freaks like Pelosi and Rangel. Just look at his life history it is impressive. If you want a pinto economy vote Huckabee if you want a 454 Super Sport Camero economy vote Romney. It is simple logic 20+years in business Romney. 20+ years in church Huckabee.
I thought Mike's attempt to help Rudy on the Bible question was condescending. I do not want a preacher of the United States. I want a president. If we go by religious values alone, Jimmy Carter beats Regan hands down. Mike appears to be a nice guy, so does Jimmy Carter. Google Huckabee and ethics or Huckabee and Jesus juice.
A Baptist minister, Huckabee singled out Holt, also a Christian. Said the governor: "I drink a different kind of Jesus juice."
I am not a Huckabee basher, but he is not presidential caliber. My first choice is Newt Gingrich (possibly someones VP?),coming in second are Romney and Tancredo.Funny, but Chuck Norris first was supporting Newt as well.
Those who want Huckabee because they drink his kind of "Jesus juice" really need to look beyond that. Do your own real homework and do not be taken in by this guy.
I will not vote for a Baptist or a Mormon or a Catholic. I will however vote for the right person even if they are Baptist,Catholic, or Mormon.
Tim: Huckabee absolutely could beat Clinton. He's behind by only one point according to the last Rasmussen survey. Giuliani is still 3-6 points back in most polls. Also, most voters by now know who Rudy is. Not everyone knows about Huckabee. Most voters have been proven to select their candidates based on personality. You can't frame Huck as a right wing extremist first because he's not and second because he comes across as a genuinely compassionate, nice guy. Bush never did, Clinton certainly will not.
Thus, far from not being able to beat Hillary, he's the only one I give a chance to beat Hillary because he's the only one who's truly different.
I support Mike Huckabee for president because this nation is undertaxed and underregulated, unwelcoming to illegal aliens, too fixated on lowering the rate of violent crime, and pathetically unsympathetic to politicians who simply want to reap a few hundred thousand dollars in extra benefits as a reward for their years of public service.
Vote for Mike!
(not verified) says:
"The more I read about this guy, the more revolting he gets: a bible-thumper, health fascist, _and_ a tax&spender all in one package. And running as a Republican."
The first two aren't bad things, unless reading the bible and being in shape or considered liberal ideas these days. The third "tax and spender" is just not true. Taxes went up by 1% in ten years, and he improved education, had the most improved roads in the country. He also saved the nursing home industry. I guess fiscal conservatism now means keep getting further in debt to China, and making sure my generation can't collect Social Security.
What happened? I'm typing along and the page just posts..
Long diatribe short, the Top Tier candidates are RINO's and it appears that Huck may be one as well.
Have you seen his immigration stance? Taxes? Spending? This guy is a disaster. Well spoken perhaps, but nonetheless a disaster. If somehow we could get a Duncan Hunter / Tom Tancredo / Fred Thompson ticket, we'd be a lot closer to what Conservatives have been thirsting for instead of what we've been getting (good 'n hard too, I might add).
Huccabee is a Right Wing Socialist.
Never saw a tax hike he didn't like. Recieving an "F" rating by the CATO institute on economic liberty.
When he took the governorship he worked hard to preserve the statis quo -- keeping most of Clinton's advisors.
He's also a nanny-statist, something that conservatives who believe in personal responcibility detest -- he wants to completely BAN smoking nation-wide, and institute mandidory health and weight screening of kids in government schools (In fact he did that in his home state. )
That's a far cry from the Regan value of getting rid of these government agencies and letting people be free to live there own life.
There's really on one true fiscal and cultural conservative in the race, and that person in Ron Paul. He says what he means, and he means what he says. Huccabee on the other hand, is a swarmy big government liberal who wants to use that big "progressive" government to force his values on everybody else. And he's using God in a vain way to pander.
I think it was MArk Twain that said, "When tyranny comes to america it will be a cross draped in a flag." I think he might have been talking about Huccabee.
Tracy
Shane, The media was not naysaying Mike Huckabee's ignorance about the N.I.E. report. The media was describing in their reporting, Mike's lack of knowledge about what the Acronym stands for.
I think it's a small error no biggie myself. I am worried about the material politics. The fact that Mike Huckabee is so willing to raise taxes as is obvious in the video you will see if you click on the link below. This is what Mike's big problem with Fiscal Voters could very well be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLOC4krZI4
Mike is sadly also weak on Border Security. This if widely known to voters, could be bad news for Huckabee's campaign among Social Conservatives. Just think what this issue did to President George Bush, a few months ago once it was widely known that he was for a "Quasi" (hush don't say it) undercover "Amnesty" package for ALL Illegal Mexicans in the U.S.A. It will all depend on one factor. That is, if voters are Made Aware of These Facts before they pull that big lever on Election Day.
Here is the link to a reviw by a Major Conservative NewsPaper on Huckabee's Immigration Record.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NATIO...
Its great to see all this about Huckabee! All this talk means is that he has arrived on the Presidential scene.
Lets be honest, who in this country is fully qualified to be President? There are so many facets of being President, that no one candidate fits all the criteria. In truth, there is not a person in America that is truly qualified to be President.
Having said that, every candidate that WE(the people) must choose from, has certain flaws. There is not a perfect candidate. Matter of fact, there are no perfect people. The best thing to do is to research and make your own decision about who you will vote for, do not rely on the media for your information.
Me, I am voting for Huckabee! He is not perfect, but he has my vote.
I need to step back and look at what is best for America. I think we are getting intrenched in trying to win for our first impression choices. It is a good idea to go and look at all the candidates again and see if we have missed something. We can't make this a popularity vote because our future is at stake here. Everyone take off the blinders and take a good look at experience, records, ideas, plans, platforms of all the candidates. Then make your choice a second time and see if your guy still makes the grade.
I think it's important to point out that judging by your criteria of a successful dark horse run.
I was just listening to replays of the Laura Ingraham talk radio show on www.youtube.com. I found this link and wanted to share it with you all to see what you all think about it. I would like some feed back so I could see if a consensus agreement is in the mix on the opinion shared by this Conservative.
I was fact checking and somehow deleted the link to Laura's radio program I intended to post in the above comment. Well no matter, here is the link I was referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb_g1gJCjL0&feature=user
Again, please tell me what all of you nice people think, once you listen to David Keene's opinion. I would like to hear all of your views pro and con.
Huckabee is a religious man.
He's a Baptist Minister who has pardoned more rapists and murderers than 6 neighboring state governors, He is very weak on immigration as evidenced by his Youtube response on tuitions for illegals, his state ethical commission has battled him with 14 violations, he never met a tax he didn't encourage and raised it 9 times in his state - going against every fiscal conservative ideology, he is clueless on foreign policy and has had no experience, he is had no business experience, and he arrogantly thinks God is behind his surge.
Besides the above, at least he is a religious man! How long will this straw-man last? He has built his house upon sand, it will be fun to watch it fall.