Huckabee decision will shape GOP presidential race

[Geee]

Washington Examiner:

The shape of the Republican presidential race depends on Mike Huckabee. The primary season will be one kind of contest with the former Arkansas governor in the race, and another without him. With Huckabee, the race would feature a favorite of social conservatives in a leading role in a campaign likely to focus on economic issues. Without him, a more economic-minded candidate might lead, with several other candidates vying for what would have been Huckabee's social-conservative spot.
Which will it be? These days, among the people who have known and worked with Huckabee, there is a growing sense that he's leaning toward another run for the White House. What follows is based on conversations with a number of people close to Huckabee, but not with Huckabee himself.

Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished in a virtual tie for second place in the 2008 Republican race. Now, Romney is running while Huckabee, happily appearing on Fox News, ABC radio, and in best-selling books, is holding back. Yet an undecided Huckabee is still a major factor in early polls.

Most surveys show Huckabee and Romney in the lead, with Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and the rest of the possible Republican field trailing at some distance. The Huckabee-Romney lead was in place before the rise of Donald Trump and will likely remain after the Trump phenomenon plays out.

Huckabee knows that polls at this stage reflect name recognition as much as than anything else, but on the other hand, he is polling ahead of other GOP politicos -- Gingrich, Palin and Romney -- who also have high name recognition. When a politician sees himself at the top of presidential polls, it has a powerful effect -- to push him toward running.

[Sanguine]

Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, and Romney

 

I just don't see any of them as inspiring and potential winners. Palin - well, she's in a different category, but I don't see her as a winner this time around either.

[Argyle58]

We have much better candidates available than any of the headliners, and, at this point with few actually declaring a run, it is too early to declare a favorite. I wouldn't vote in a primary for Romney, Huck or Newt. I'm hoping Palin won't run yet, but I think a cabinet post in a Republican administration would give her a better chance to overcome her current negative press.

 

I am more concerned as to whether the Good Ol' Boys at the GOP will try to cram one of these folks down our throats. If they do, they aren't paying attention, and their fund raising efforts will continue to show it.

[Valin]

We have much better candidates available than any of the headliners, and, at this point with few actually declaring a run, it is too early to declare a favorite. I wouldn't vote in a primary for Romney, Huck or Newt. I'm hoping Palin won't run yet, but I think a cabinet post in a Republican administration would give her a better chance to overcome her current negative press.

 

I am more concerned as to whether the Good Ol' Boys at the GOP will try to cram one of these folks down our throats. If they do, they aren't paying attention, and their fund raising efforts will continue to show it.

 

 

How do they do this? My view is this...if someone wins the GOP (or for that matter the democrat) nomination, they win it for one simple reason...they ran a better campaign than the other candidates...and a little luck doesn't hurt.

I get a little tired of this idea that someone was "crammed down our throats".

[Sanguine]

We have much better candidates available than any of the headliners, and, at this point with few actually declaring a run, it is too early to declare a favorite. I wouldn't vote in a primary for Romney, Huck or Newt. I'm hoping Palin won't run yet, but I think a cabinet post in a Republican administration would give her a better chance to overcome her current negative press.

 

I am more concerned as to whether the Good Ol' Boys at the GOP will try to cram one of these folks down our throats. If they do, they aren't paying attention, and their fund raising efforts will continue to show it.

 

 

How do they do this? My view is this...if someone wins the GOP (or for that matter the democrat) nomination, they win it for one simple reason...they ran a better campaign than the other candidates...and a little luck doesn't hurt.

I get a little tired of this idea that someone was "crammed down our throats".

 

How do they do this? How do they put forward a candidate whom, not only most Americans don't want to vote for, but many Republicans or conservatives won't vote for? I guess we'd have to ask John McCain, or Bob Dole. My guess - they put the most appealing candidate for the party's interests (as in, their own), and don't spend too much time on principles or values. And, sometimes they miscalculate badly and advance a candidate with little broad appeal and the requisite paucity of values.

[Valin]

We have much better candidates available than any of the headliners, and, at this point with few actually declaring a run, it is too early to declare a favorite. I wouldn't vote in a primary for Romney, Huck or Newt. I'm hoping Palin won't run yet, but I think a cabinet post in a Republican administration would give her a better chance to overcome her current negative press.

 

I am more concerned as to whether the Good Ol' Boys at the GOP will try to cram one of these folks down our throats. If they do, they aren't paying attention, and their fund raising efforts will continue to show it.

 

 

How do they do this? My view is this...if someone wins the GOP (or for that matter the democrat) nomination, they win it for one simple reason...they ran a better campaign than the other candidates...and a little luck doesn't hurt.

I get a little tired of this idea that someone was "crammed down our throats".

 

How do they do this? How do they put forward a candidate whom, not only most Americans don't want to vote for, but many Republicans or conservatives won't vote for? I guess we'd have to ask John McCain, or Bob Dole. My guess - they put the most appealing candidate for the party's interests (as in, their own), and don't spend too much time on principles or values. And, sometimes they miscalculate badly and advance a candidate with little broad appeal and the requisite paucity of values.

 

 

My point and really my only point is the candidate who runs the best campaign wins, remember it's all about 50%+1. I'm not saying the winner is the best candidate, (see Bob Dole vs Bill Clinton or John Kerry vs George Bush...I mean what were the parties thinking!) only that they ran the best campaign, and appealed to the largest number of voters.

[Sanguine]

 

My point and really my only point is the candidate who runs the best campaign wins, remember it's all about 50%+1. I'm not saying the winner is the best candidate, (see Bob Dole vs Bill Clinton or John Kerry vs George Bush...I mean what were the parties thinking!) only that they ran the best campaign, and appealed to the largest number of voters.

 

Ah - I see what you are saying now. And, maybe that's the problem - do we really think that McCain ran the best campaign before he became the official candidate? I'm not sure I buy that.

[Valin]

 

My point and really my only point is the candidate who runs the best campaign wins, remember it's all about 50%+1. I'm not saying the winner is the best candidate, (see Bob Dole vs Bill Clinton or John Kerry vs George Bush...I mean what were the parties thinking!) only that they ran the best campaign, and appealed to the largest number of voters.

 

Ah - I see what you are saying now. And, maybe that's the problem - do we really think that McCain ran the best campaign before he became the official candidate? I'm not sure I buy that.

 

 

Best? Certainly the most effective campaign, he was forced to by the fact his campaign was broke, that forced him and his staff to get creative....lack of funds will do that. It should also be noted the MSM kept his name in the news, and treated him...(how shall I put this?) kindly.

[Pepper]

Dole and McCain were losers before they became losers.

 

We need to put Iowa last on the list of state primaries, #57 perhaps.

 

Valin I take it you subscribe to the general rule of thumb that every nation gets the moron it deserves.

[Argyle58]

We have much better candidates available than any of the headliners, and, at this point with few actually declaring a run, it is too early to declare a favorite. I wouldn't vote in a primary for Romney, Huck or Newt. I'm hoping Palin won't run yet, but I think a cabinet post in a Republican administration would give her a better chance to overcome her current negative press.

 

I am more concerned as to whether the Good Ol' Boys at the GOP will try to cram one of these folks down our throats. If they do, they aren't paying attention, and their fund raising efforts will continue to show it.

 

 

How do they do this? My view is this...if someone wins the GOP (or for that matter the democrat) nomination, they win it for one simple reason...they ran a better campaign than the other candidates...and a little luck doesn't hurt.

I get a little tired of this idea that someone was "crammed down our throats".

 

They do it with money and support from other high profile politicians and celebrities. The RNC has less pull in this area than the Dems, but they do have an effect. Which is why the RNC is hurting for financial support.....more and more donors are contributing directly to campaigns, and less to the party coffers.

 

The "better campaign" to which you refer generally requires cash for media time. No matter how charismatic a candidate, without exposure they cannot get known by the voters. With the 0 bragging about having over a billion dollars to spend on his re-election, and GOP candidate is going to require a lot.

 

Support from fellow politicians, at least those on the national level are generally co-ordinated through the national party. Celebrities are a little bit more flexible, but their support can only be enhanced by party backing.

[Valin]

Dole and McCain were losers before they became losers.

 

We need to put Iowa last on the list of state primaries, #57 perhaps.

 

Valin I take it you subscribe to the general rule of thumb that every nation gets the moron it deserves.

 

 

We get the guy we want.

[Valin]

Argyle58

 

Weekly Standard: Morning Jay: Democrats Should Worry about the GOP Field

[WestVirginiaRebel]

I think part of the problem is that you have some unappealing or questionable wannabes (Donald Trump???) versus the also-rans this time around. The ones with a future-Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker-will have to wait until 2016.

[Valin]

I think part of the problem is that you have some unappealing or questionable wannabes (Donald Trump???) versus the also-rans this time around. The ones with a future-Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker-will have to wait until 2016.

 

 

Two points

 

A. I think for some people, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

 

B. (related to A.) This something I noticed at TOS, some folks pick a candidate who has no chance of winning (see PJB in the 2000 primary, Fred 'macbeth' Thompson in 2008) but who they agree with 95% of the time vs a candidate who actually has a chance of winning, but they agree with 60% of the time.

 

The questions we really need to ask ourselves are..

Can this person WIN. Set your emotions hopes dreams personal preferences aside and look at the person coldly, can they realistically win. I don't care if a candidate has the greatest ideas since sliced bread, if they can't win, (remember the math 50%+1) then we are wasting our time. Here Herman Cain comes to mind. I LOVE THIS GUY!!! And I have sent him some money, but really he has no chance of winning...and boy would be really really really happy to be wrong on this, President Herman Cain....? It has a certain ring to it.

Is this a person of good character? Can we trust this person to do what they believe is best for the nation? That's why I don't like Mike Huckabee...I just don't trust him.

(in this upcoming election) can this person bring the fight to Barack Obama, get down and dirty if needs be (and I suspect there will be a need to) I am reminded of something Newt said a couple of weeks ago...(I paraphrase) Who would you like to see debate the President? Me or someone else? Needless to say many of us have issues with Newt...but this is a very good question. IMO Newt has the chops to send Obama home bloody and beaten and asking did anyone get the license of that truck.

 

 

here endth the rant #687,992...more sure to follow

[nickydog]

I think part of the problem is that you have some unappealing or questionable wannabes (Donald Trump???) versus the also-rans this time around. The ones with a future-Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker-will have to wait until 2016.

 

 

Two points

 

A. I think for some people, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

 

B. (related to A.) This something I noticed at TOS, some folks pick a candidate who has no chance of winning (see PJB in the 2000 primary, Fred 'macbeth' Thompson in 2008) but who they agree with 95% of the time vs a candidate who actually has a chance of winning, but they agree with 60% of the time.

 

The questions we really need to ask ourselves are..

Can this person WIN. Set your emotions hopes dreams personal preferences aside and look at the person coldly, can they realistically win. I don't care if a candidate has the greatest ideas since sliced bread, if they can't win, (remember the math 50%+1) then we are wasting our time. Here Herman Cain comes to mind. I LOVE THIS GUY!!! And I have sent him some money, but really he has no chance of winning...and boy would be really really really happy to be wrong on this, President Herman Cain....? It has a certain ring to it.

Is this a person of good character? Can we trust this person to do what they believe is best for the nation? That's why I don't like Mike Huckabee...I just don't trust him.

(in this upcoming election) can this person bring the fight to Barack Obama, get down and dirty if needs be (and I suspect there will be a need to) I am reminded of something Newt said a couple of weeks ago...(I paraphrase) Who would you like to see debate the President? Me or someone else? Needless to say many of us have issues with Newt...but this is a very good question. IMO Newt has the chops to send Obama home bloody and beaten and asking did anyone get the license of that truck.

 

 

here endth the rant #687,992...more sure to follow

You're right, Valin. I also like the optimistic tone of your post from the Weekly Standard.

 

If we did nominate Herman Cain it would put to rest the racist accusations I would hope, and it would be great to watch Newt make mincemeat of Obama but the 50%+1 is most important to keep in mind.

[Sanguine]

 

You're right, Valin. I also like the optimistic tone of your post from the Weekly Standard.

 

If we did nominate Herman Cain it would put to rest the racist accusations I would hope, and it would be great to watch Newt make mincemeat of Obama but the 50%+1 is most important to keep in mind.

 

No, sorry, it won't put those accusations to rest because they are not hurled around because of actual racism, but rather racism redefined to mean "what THOSE people think" vs. "what we KNOW to be correct". Facts don't get in the way of that kind of belief system.

[Valin]

I think part of the problem is that you have some unappealing or questionable wannabes (Donald Trump???) versus the also-rans this time around. The ones with a future-Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker-will have to wait until 2016.

 

 

Two points

 

A. I think for some people, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

 

B. (related to A.) This something I noticed at TOS, some folks pick a candidate who has no chance of winning (see PJB in the 2000 primary, Fred 'macbeth' Thompson in 2008) but who they agree with 95% of the time vs a candidate who actually has a chance of winning, but they agree with 60% of the time.

 

The questions we really need to ask ourselves are..

Can this person WIN. Set your emotions hopes dreams personal preferences aside and look at the person coldly, can they realistically win. I don't care if a candidate has the greatest ideas since sliced bread, if they can't win, (remember the math 50%+1) then we are wasting our time. Here Herman Cain comes to mind. I LOVE THIS GUY!!! And I have sent him some money, but really he has no chance of winning...and boy would be really really really happy to be wrong on this, President Herman Cain....? It has a certain ring to it.

Is this a person of good character? Can we trust this person to do what they believe is best for the nation? That's why I don't like Mike Huckabee...I just don't trust him.

(in this upcoming election) can this person bring the fight to Barack Obama, get down and dirty if needs be (and I suspect there will be a need to) I am reminded of something Newt said a couple of weeks ago...(I paraphrase) Who would you like to see debate the President? Me or someone else? Needless to say many of us have issues with Newt...but this is a very good question. IMO Newt has the chops to send Obama home bloody and beaten and asking did anyone get the license of that truck.

 

 

here endth the rant #687,992...more sure to follow

You're right, Valin. I also like the optimistic tone of your post from the Weekly Standard.

 

If we did nominate Herman Cain it would put to rest the racist accusations I would hope, and it would be great to watch Newt make mincemeat of Obama but the 50%+1 is most important to keep in mind.

 

 

Absolutely!!!

Many of us spent the last general election race holding our noses, understanding that while McCain was a...poor choice (/understatement) The One would be far far worse.

 

About sums it up!!!!

 

This time I don't see a McCain type in the race.