A Vote for Huckabee is a vote for Rudy Giuliani

Iowans for Romney ^ | 11/26/07 | Jeff Fuller

[Jeff Fuller]

The below is what I origianlly posted at Iowans for Romney) http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2007/11/vote-for-mike-huckabee-is-vote-for-rudy_25.html :

Yes my friends, a vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for Rudy Giuliani. In Iowa this is absolutely the case, and in other battleground states the same argument holds true.

Why is a vote for Huckabee a vote for Rudy?

On the surface the proposition appears preposterous. Huckabee and Rudy represent the absolute polar opposites of the GOP field; Huck being a solid social conservative but fiscal liberal/moderate and conversely Rudy being a social liberal/moderate and a solid fiscal conservative. I've had conversations with supporters of both Rudy and Huck; they are farily consistent in saying that the one candidate in the race that they wouldn't/couldn't vote for is the other.

However, at least for Team Rudy, their died-in-the-wool supporters are openly rooting for Huckabee to win Iowa. Also, these two candidate themselves seem to have man-crushes on one another. Seems odd, eh?

Well, Rudy and his most knowledgeable supporters know that Mitt is the only real threat to his path to the nomination. More and more people are realizing that the race is shaping up to be a Romney-Rudy showdown. Influential conservative editor of the Weekly Standard Fred Barnes penned a piece called "The Two-Man Race" arguing that only Rudy and Romney had "credible strategies/scenarios" to winning the GOP nomination. Fred said:

If a long shot like McCain or Thompson or even Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa (January 3) or New Hampshire (January 8) or South Carolina (January 19), there won't be enough time for him to raise the funds needed to compete effectively in Florida on January 29 and the 20-plus primaries on February 5. Television ads are expensive, but necessary.

Similarly, conservative columnist John Poderotz wrote a piece called "The Two Man Republican Race" where he also says it's down to Romney and Rudy. Of Huckabee he says:

Mike Huckabee, Baptist preacher turned politician, has taken Thompson’s place as the Southern conservative to watch, but while he is conservative on social issues, on economic and political matters he seems more in the populist traditions of the Democratic party, and he has no plausible path to the nomination.

Now I know there will be Huckabee supporter that believe that if he wins Iowa that he will pick up steam and win the subsequent states eventually going on to win the nomination. I respectfully disagree.

Huckabee's appeal is disproportionately weighted to firm evangelical Christians. The latest Iowa poll shows that Huckabee is blowing every other candidate away in this demographic. He's got nearly half of all evangelical Iowans polled in his camp already. He knows and speaks the language of this well-organized and motivated demographic. But is it enough? Maybe for Iowa, but not for the subsequent states.

Actually, let's take a look at the the primary calender and see if Huckabee has any "credible pathway" to the nomination:

Iowa--Jan 3rd.

Wyoming--Jan 5th (only a fraction of state's primary delegates up for grabs on this date though and these will be determined via a convention of party activists):

• Conventional wisdom is that Romney will win here solidly (he got 61% of vote in a straw poll of party activists a couple of weeks ago . . . Rudy got 12%, Huckabee got 10%)
• It's only TWO days after Iowa . . . not enough time for Huckabee to capitalize on an Iowa win to make a significant move among these activists.
• Admittedly, whoever wins Wyoming won't get any kind of big boost because it's not a "major showdown" state. However, it can't be a negative to win this state that is sandwiched between IA and NH.

New Hampshire--Jan 8th:

• Huckabee and Fred Thompson are currently fighting for FIFTH and SIXTH place in the Granite State . . . polling most recently between 5 and 6 % . . . BEHIND RON PAUL.
• Huckabee is 27% points behind Romney (see link above of RCP averages).
• The NH primary will take place just FIVE days after Iowa . . . enough time to shift things a little bit but not a total upheaval in the standings (barring any "Dean Scream" type gaffe . . . which could result in a large shift). Definitely not enough time to capitalize financially from an earlier win.
• Rudy and McCain are working NH aggressively and polling strongly (it's an all or nothing state for McCain). Most people think that if Rudy can win here he will have the nomination wrapped up.
• ANY political pundit will tell you the common mantra of "Three tickets out of Iowa, Two tickets out of NH." I invite any Huckabee supporter to convince me that he can place in the top two in NH and thereby survive beyond (remembering that, in general, GOP southern candidates don't have a great track record in NH and that NH voters tend to care about fiscal conservativsm MUCH MORE than social conservatism). The primary schedule has changed and so, admittedly, this mantra of conventional wisdom may not hold true,. Still, I don't see how any candidate that finishes fourth or worse in NH has any kind of momentum going into MI, NV, and SC.
• The only race-changing effect that Huckabee can have by winning Iowa is cause some negative press to Romney and potentially shift the top of the standings in NH . . . allowing Rudy (or McCain?) to win it.

Michigan--Jan 15th:

• One week after NH (again, not much time in between).
• Huckabee is polling in FIFTH place (by a long shot by RCP averages)--a paltry 6%
• Romney has a distinct advantage in MI since he is a "native son" (born and raised there . . . father was beloved three-term governor). Romney is tied for the lead there WITHOUT any advertising. But Rudy has a strong presence and this one will likely be somewhat influence by the outcome of NH (another northern state that not even Bush could win in the 2000 primary that doesn't tend to go for southern evangelical social conservatives).

Nevada--Jan 19th:

• Huckabee is polling in SIXTH place (at 5%) . . . a good deal behind Thompson, McCain, and Ron Paul.
• Rudy is leading polls here, but many think that Romney (who's not far behind) will have an advantage under their new-found caucus format.
• Something tells me that voters in the state steeped in legalized gambling and legalized prostitution will not be suddenly "converted" to a candidate who is presumably the preferred choice of the Evangelical Christians.
• Another state where previous poorer-than-expected showings for Romney would probably tilt the state to Rudy

South Carolina--Jan 19th (same day as Nevada . . . and thereby probably diluting the "bounce" of a win unless the same candidate wins them both):

• Huckabee is currently polling in FIFTH place at 8%
• Surprisingly to many (including yours truly), this state is being led by Romney now, but it really is a statistical dead heat with Rudy and Romney both between 20-22%.
• I will agree with many Huckabee and Thompson supporters that their candidates have more of a "natural fit" in this state and could probably capitalize on prior wins to surge in the polls in the Palmetto State (both southerners with good social conservative credentials). However, the primary schedule just doesn't play to their favor with 3-4 states that they don't really have a shot of winning wedged between Iowa and South Carolina.

Florida--Jan 29th (27 electoral votes) has been polled:

• Ditto everything I said above about SC (Huck's in FIFTH and @ 8%) . . . with the exception that Rudy has a much more commanding lead here. Even if Huck has managed to win IA and SC . . . he doesn't have the money or the organization to take on Rudy in FL. Romney does, and he's already polling in 2nd place in FL and is trending up nicely.
• Rudy must be halted in FL . . . and Romney is the man to do it.

TSUNAMI TUESDAY--Feb 5th:

• Rudy's Big-State strategy is focused on this date . . . just 33 days after the Iowa caucus.
• Which candidate is best positioned to challenge Rudy in his supposed "firewall" states? (especially CA) I'll give you a hint and tell you that it isn't Huckabee.

Won't all these subsequent states come to love Huckabee like Iowa? Not enough for him to come even close to winning any of them (until possibly South Carolina). It is well known that social conservatives with a strongly religious appeal tend to over-perform in Iowa and then fade into irrelevance thereafter:

• In 2000, Alan Keyes got 14% of the Iowa vote compared to 6% of the NH vote and Gary Bauer got 9% in Iowa and only 1% in NH that same year (same links as above). All told, these primarily social/religious conservatives managed 23% of the vote in IA and just 7% in NH or over 3 times more religious social conservative support in IA than NH.
• In 1988 Pat Robertson got 25% of the Iowa vote (coming in a strong 2nd place to Bob Dole but beating out eventual NH/GOP/general election winner George HW Bush) , but Robertson struggled mightily in New Hampshire limping in at fifth place (again with about one-third of his Iowa percentage).

Huckabee will likely fall victim to a similar fate if he can't expand his appeal beyond religious social conservatives. Jim Geraghty recently wrote (and I read this after writing this blog entry):

One exception to my "close second" theory is Huckabee. He seems to be enjoying a well-timed surge, but unless he wins Iowa, he risks becoming John Podhoretz's "Republican Guy Who Is Coming Out of Nowhere to Place a Surprising Second in Iowa," a role JPod contends has been played in previous cycles by Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Steve Forbes. In other words, he gets one more news cycle of good press and then fades quickly.

Having said all that, if each win begets another bump in the polls, it's not unthinkable to see Romney win Iowa, win Wyoming (for whatever that's worth), win New Hampshire, win Michigan, win South Carolina by a hair, and then go into Florida with a very hot hand...

A word of warning to Huckabee supporters: If on caucus night, lots of Rudy supporters (who should be diametrically opposed to a candidate like Huckabee) start to align with the Huckabee camp you will know that you are being used as a tool for a Rudy nomination. Ironically, you are probably the voting block that would be most opposed to having a pro-choice candidate, yet it would be, at least in part, your own doing.

Of course, James Dobson and/or Tony Perkins and/or Richard Land could help the average Christian conservative realize all of the above by endorsing Romney BEFORE Jan 3rd. Otherwise, they risk being complicit in creating the situation they supposedly lament: a pro-choice GOP nominee that will necessitate a 3rd party pro-life candidate. This scenario will hand Hillary the oval office on a silver platter. So then, might one also conclude: "A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Hillary?"

I, therefore, invite and implore all social conservative Iowans to consider supporting Governor Mitt Romney on Jan 3rd at your Caucus event. His is the largest tent unifying social, fiscal, and security conservatives and this coalition of strength can carry him forward beyond Iowa to win the GOP nomination and the general election. It CAN happen and we all can be a part of it.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I have an even better idea: Vote for a REAL conservative! Vote for Fred Thompson!

[JayHawk Phrenzie]

Nominating Mitt will guarantee a Hillary Clinton Victory.

Only Rudy can stop her.

Huckabee is a joke, Mitt can’t win.

Vote for Rudy or get used to Hillary.

It’s that simple.

[A. Morgan]

BINGO!

[ari-freedom]

Tired of those phony psychics you see on tv? Well, look no further. We are the real psychics. Only 99 cents per call.

[JayHawk Phrenzie]

Fred Thompson was doomed by the writer’s strike.

Without writer’s we are forced to hear his own words and opinions.

Not pretty.

Fred is done. If you like Fred, watch Law & Order reruns, cause he won’t be your president anytime soon.

[ari-freedom]

Rudee
Romnee
Huckabee
Hillaree

Vote for any of them and you must be an ee-diot.

[ari-freedom]

Romney 2008! Because he’s the prettiest.

[gpapa]

The new Rassmussen poll shows all five top Pubbie candidates ahead of the Hildabeast, so why should I vote for RINO Rudy.

[william clark]

Simpleminded, anyway.

[Man50D]

And a vote for Giuliani is avote for Clinton.

Huck being a solid social conservative but fiscal liberal/moderate and conversely Rudy being a social liberal/moderate and a solid fiscal conservative.

Breaking down Conservatism into sub categories is disingenuous. It's tantamount to saying a person can be a Conservative while having some socialist beliefs. The two political ideologies are mutually exclusive. Either a person is a Conservative or is a Socialist. There is no in between. Duncan Hunter has consistently been a true Conservative throughout his political career unlike the so called media labeled "top tier" candidates.

[Man50D]

Vote for Rudy or get used to Hillary.

Voting for Giuliani is tantamount to voting for Clinton.

[greedo]

Vote for Rudy or get used to Hillary.

Where, if I may ask, was your candidate when Duncan Hunter was

in southeast asia KILLING COMMUNISTS?

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Glad I’m not voting for either of them !

[John Valentine]

You beat me to it, Vet.

Why should anyone vote for a social liberal in a fiscal conservative’s body, or a fiscal liberal in a social conservatives body, when they can have both a social and fiscal conservative, body and soul, in one man - Fred Thompson!

[Lexinom]

There is a better solution out there:

DUNCAN HUNTER

Experience, rock-solid credentials, no past abortion support, and no flip-flopping.

[ari-freedom]

Hunter is not a fiscal conservative.
he should be sec of defense in a Thompson admin

[Lexinom]

No, he's a patriotic conservative. He's right on just about every issue, and has a record of accomplishment:

* Served his nation in battle. (Only one other candidate can say that.)
* Represented his district for 28 years.
* Chaired the House Armed Services Committee.
* Rock-solid on military/defense
* Rock-solid on 2A
* Rock-solid on life
* Endorsed by patriots like Gen. Chuck Yeager
* He built the existing fence and authored the 854-mile fence legislation.
* Impeccable personal credentials: monogamous, and a son who has already served two tours of duty in Iraq.
* Has the energy to get done what sorely needs doing, and the experience to do it.

He is the man America needs.

[AmericanInTokyo]

The answer is clear.

Quit playing these elections as if they are a series of some two bit horse races and we are unemployed hobos munching on cigars and reading the racing forms, discussing handicaps.

1) Study all the candidates.

2) Determine their political philosophy, sources of funding, voting records, and advisors.

3) Find the one WHO MOST CLOSELY REPRESENTS YOUR VIEWPOINT regardless of his standing on the "racing form".

4) Cast your vote accordingly. Your vote shows up in the column of the person you identify with most, whom you want to be President of the United States. It is to be an honest statement to the WORLD (without your name being told) as to your honest opinion, you state a moral truth.

And that should be the END OF IT.

[ari-freedom]

That’s why he’d make an excellent sec of defense or in charge of homeland security.