Not when that part of the coalition (the rich) comprises less than 1% of the population. It’s the “values voters” who have produced the victories at the polls for Republicans.
If Huckabee gets the nod, and winds up running against Hillary-of-the-high-negatives, I see trouble.
Huckabee appeals to the Republican base, but what does he offer independents and moderate Democrats? He cannot win without them.
His very problem in Republican primaries is that he is (by the lights of business-oriented Republicans) too moderate. He espouses environmentalism, decries the hatefulness of earlier Republican campaigns, speaks critically of Bush’s go-it-alone foreign policy, speaks of the importance of addressing health care and poverty, has dealt compassionately with undocumented workers.
Moreover, the base of which you’re speaking may be larger than you suppose. This board is hardly reflective of the level of religious conviction among the electorate at large.
One other point is that many “swing voters” tend to focus more on personality than on issues. And whatever else you can say about Huckabee, you can’t deny that he has a charming personality.
Combine all of that with Hillary’s negatives, and paying particular attention to the swing states which tend to turn the election, I see a Huckabee nomination as trouble for Democrats.
Meh. Hillary’s negatives are with those folks who wouldn’t consider voting for a Democrat anyway. Don’t worry about it.
A Huckabee nomination may well be trouble for Democrats. It augers ill for Cub Scouts, taxi drivers, Ph.D. candidates in philology, and lounge lizards as well. Citizens of Norway and Ivory Coast will be concerned, if not panic-stricken. (You would think that if an American President were unaware of the existence of a particular nation, it would feel assured of relative safety.) As a semi-secular agnostic with a life long interest in alternative realities, I am moved to a state of higher dudgeon. Should this horror come to pass, I will try and be mindful that I do not afflict others with the gathering gloom of my opinions. Too often.
Dead wrong, I’m afraid. Hillary has 30% negatives even among Iowa Democrats.
Similar to those of the other leading candidates, as other polls linked in this forum recently have shown.
And remember, these polls are for the PRIMARY. Democrats, on average, will vote for the Democrat rather than the Republican, even if the Democrat has high negatives. The Republican, unless he/she is a VERY unusual candidate, will have even higher negatives for a Democratic voter.
Don’t discount the advantage of surpassing expectations. Romney coming in first in IA when it was his for the taking doesn’t help his campaign one iota. But overtaking would-be usurper Mike Huckabee throws the Romney campaign back into the spotlight. Never mind the fact that it was a combination of Huckabee’s flubs over the past week (i.e. “Let’s watch the borders for any suspicious Pakistanis”) and his lack of a solid machine in IA that did it.
My fondest wish is that the Republicans nominate Romney. Or Giuliani. Either will do.
That’s what one would think. However, the elite class has been remarkably efficient at getting people to swallow their arguments- such as lowering taxes on the rich will spur economic growth, estate tax=death tax, etc. The value voters have brought home the bacon for the Republicans, but they still aren’t welcome at the breakfast table.
Q: Handicap the GOP nomination race.
A: No. They’re already all handicapped enough!
Yeah, you have to do stuff like corrupt the Federal DAs who are in charge of prosecuting electoral fraud … those guys from … what’s that department? Justice???
1% of the voters, but over 50% of the available money. The interesting thing is that, as far as I’ve read, the money isn’t flowing into Huck even after this surge. Add to that the fact that the Dems are beating the crap out of the Republicans in the funding game, and Huck spells trouble.
Judging by polls, trends, and my performance on Guitar Hero while thinking about the candidate, I’m gonna make my call on Caucus Eve.
Romney wins Iowa by a decent margin, Huckabee comes in a close but a non-threatening second, with McCain in third.
McCain surges prior to NH, but Romney’s victory gives him enough momentum to squeak a win in NH. He rolls through the rest of the states as the GOP candidate.
Regarding the Huckabee church-folk/money-folk divide, I think the money folk are taking a wait and see approach. If Huck can bring the church-folk votes in sufficient numbers, the money-folk will bring the money in sufficient amounts. If he looks like he’s going to be the candidate, you can be darn sure some of the bankroll guys will have a sit down with Huck and educate him on the way-it-all-works.
If he’s smart, he’ll tell them he will run from the middle to win, and then shift once he’s in office (where have we seen that before?) If he’s not so smart, he’ll bite the hand that’s feeding him while he campaigns, but they will keep the pressure on him and he’ll begin to drift.
If he’s a total moron, they’ll make sure to screw him by convention time (photo’s/recordings/swift-boating) and Mitt’s the man.
He’s dropping out unless he finishes strong in Iowa tonight.
Good riddance, you lazy old fart. It sure looks like it was all your trophy wife’s idea the whole time, doesn’t it?
Wonder if he’ll give a “you won’t have my lawn for me to kick you off of anymore” speech. 
And the winner of the Wesley Clark award for the candidate who was definitely not worth waiting for to get in the race goes to Fred Thompson. Not sure if both his supporters will go to McCain or if one will go to McCain and one to Huckabee.
How did Huckabee do on Leno last night? I only caught the last few minutes of it and it seemed he was doing well.
I think we ought to go ahead and name the award after Gramps, in addition to awarding it to him.
While Wes Clark didn’t run a great campaign, he hung in there long enough to win one primary (Oklahoma), and actually campaigned and stuff. He was ten times as good a candidate as Gramps.