Posted on 12/15/2007 9:46:36 AM PST by FocusNexus
THEY'VE found him! The punditocracy believes it has spied a rare species: a moderate Republican who's candid, funny, charming, and doesn't think the earth is flat or Bush has a clue. Eight years ago, it was John McCain. This time, it's Mike Huckabee. Channeling the 2004 hit comedy movie, they heart Huckabee.
We expose Huckabee. In Salon.com, reporter Max Brantley recounted his years covering then-Governor Huckabee for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Reporters considered him petty, thin-skinned, self-righteous, and ethically challenged.
Brantley reports that Huckabee used campaign funds to pay himself as his own media consultant. (Personally, I consider this a hanging offense.)
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
My read from the story is that it was a hypothetical general election matchup. If it's comparing the share of the two in their separate and respective primaries, then it's like comparing apples and plankton -- it's meaningless.
This poll is worthless.
Or, at least, the reporting of it is. If this is a general election poll, it leaves 57% of the electorate unaccounted for. It it's two primary polls, it's meaningless because they are not -- as yet -- competing with each other. It's like comparing American League and National League stats in the regular season, when the games are played under different rules. The World Series determines the outcome.
The above poll in Arkansas points to a larger problem.
If the GOP nominates either of the two northeastern Yankees with liberal records on abortion and “gay rights” — Rudy or Romney — they will put even some southern states at risk against the Dems.
Huckabee, McCain, Thompson...all of them would carry a solid south, with Florida the contest it always is. (Though the poll suggests that Huck may be the only GOPer who can carry Arkansas against the state’s former First Lady.)
I sure don’t.
Winning Arkansas is not the same as winning the general election.
“Winning Arkansas is not the same as winning the general election.”
Having managed my first campaign 29 years ago, I nonetheless appreciate the tutoring, Focus.
But in fact, winning Arkansas is probably necessary to win the general election, and current polling — which can change, of course — indicates that only Huckabee would beat Hillary in Arkansas.
I think your point, however, was that Huckabee’s leading Hillary in Arkansas does not mean he would beat her nationally. Of course. And I suggested no such thing based on the Rasmussen findings in Arkansas; I merely rebutted the original assertion that Huck isn’t liked in or couldn’t win Arkansas.
But turns out I come fully armed on the broader general election question as well, with scientific data indicating that Huckabee has the biggest lead over Hillary nationwide of any GOP candidate:
ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL
November 26, 2007
General election match-ups show the New York senator would lose against every top Republican
UTICA, New York A new Zogby Interactive survey shows Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would lose to every one of the top five Republican presidential contenders, representing a reversal of fortune for the national Democratic frontrunner who had led against all prospective GOP opponents earlier this year.
Huckabee 44% +5
Clinton 39
Thompson 44% +4
Clinton 40
McCain 42% +4
Clinton 38
Giuliani 43% +3
Clinton 40
Romney 43% +3
Clinton 40
The online survey included 9,150 likely voters nationwide, and was conducted Nov. 2126, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/ 1.0 percentage points.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393
How strange. That's exactly the way I perceive him today.
I have heard that Michael Medved is.
Sounds like Hillary and Bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.