never understood the rudy wishfulness (0.00 / 0)

I have never seen an explanation that convinces me why Huckabee's rise helps Giuliani - even before shag fund. 

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 23:53:25 PM UTC

Hurts Romney (0.00 / 0)

The thing is that Romeny has invested a lot into Iowa, it looks really bad if he loses it to someone who was completely written off not very long ago.  I cannot currently see a scenario where Romney doesn't plummet in NH leaving the field open for Guilliani or now possibly McCain.

The thing is that the condensed schedule is not good for a Carter style Iowa launch-pad.  Huckabee is well behind in infrastructure in all of the states, it will take a some serious work for him to take advantage of an Iowa victory especially as I don't see him coming in first in either NH or Nevada.

I am still predicting a long drawn out primary between Huckabee and the anointed of the money wing of their party.  Probably whomever wins NH.

Huckabee will be hard to beat in the general.  He has a lot going for him, as I have been saying for a long time.  Fortunately he will have trouble raising money because of his more populist positions.  He also does not yet have a national following.  I think that the attack against him, like our attack against most of this crop, is inconsistency.  What positions have they changed to try to win the Republican nomination?

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 00:08:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't worry too much about Huck (0.00 / 0)

He's not a strong general election candidate; in fact I think he would be a rather terrible one.

For one, he's got a huge problem named Wayne Dumond that will not go away.

For another, he's got an insane tax proposal that even Republicans acknowledge as such. If it's Huck v. Hillary, even the Wall Street Journal will endorse Hillary.

For another, he has absolutely zero commander-in-chief cred. He doesn't know how to scare people the way Bush, Cheney, Giuliani do, which is utterly essential to the GOP's electoral fortunes.

He's such a faulty candidate I find it hard to believe the GOP will actually nominate him. The establishment hates the guy, and when was the last time someone won the GOP nomination without the support of the party establishment? (Not that the same isn't true on the Democratic side, by the way.) They'll rally around McCain before they let this guy carry their banner and ruin their brand for some time to come.

---

by: Jason C. @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:34:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anti-Huckabee strategy (0.00 / 0)

Was this posted before or after Huckabee released his immigration plan today? Talk about out of right field. Point being, once Huckabee reveals himself as another hard-line wingnut (with an admittedly accessible, folksy exterior) there will be plenty to attack.

---

by: johnduvi @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:27:47 AM UTC

I can't wrap my head around this (4.00 / 2)

  The Democratic candidates, except for John Edwards, are barely mentioning bread-and-butter issues, and for the most part are running away from economic populism. And Democratic primary voters don't seem to mind too much -- Edwards isn't exactly dominating in the polling.

  But the one Republican candidate who's embracing economic populism is soaring in the polls.

  Economic issues are usually the Democrats' turf in national elections. And yet we see the spectacle where Republican primary voters seem more concerned about the economy than Democratic ones.

  I have no idea what to make of this. Is this DLC-itis again, in which the Democrats, for fear of "sounding too liberal", are laying low and letting the Republicans define the issues again?

  Could we see the Republican run to the LEFT of the Democrat on the economy come general-election season? If that happens, the Dems are singed toast.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:12:51 AM UTC

Rahm 'The Rabbit' Emmanuel and the rest of... (0.00 / 0)

.....the Shrum successors in the Dead Last Caucus have declared 'populism' and all that nasty 'class warfare' stuff off limits. The Hill's bosom buddy Murdoch the Grasping would not be amused. He luvs him some Estate Tax repeal.

Seriously, the candidates with the exception of Edwards just see no percentage in getting folks all riled up over the fact that the Second Great Depression is just around the corner.

That's just the way it's gotta be to 'preserve' Bush's legacy  tax cuts.

At least according to Obama and Clinton.

And more importantly those who back them.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:18:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

hey, Obama aint liberal enough for me either, (0.00 / 0)

and I like Edwards policies, but to suggest that Obama wants to keep the Bush tax cuts is well beyond disingenuous.

Even Hillary is going to close SOME loopholes.

That being said, it would certainly be best for America if Edwards got the nod, but NONE OF THE BIG THREE are going to stop this next recession from being a BRUTAL one...

If you think Edwards is really ready to stand up to corporations, then why isn't he advocating single payer? Why isn't he talking about drastically cutting military spending?

Because he still wants to play the game.
You should recognize that there is very little difference between ALL THREE candidates, and that all of them do offer some substantive change. Just not close to enough.

[dang I wish Al Gore was running]

---

by: afterthought @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:51:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like Al Gore too, but... (4.00 / 1)

...I don't remember him advocating large cuts in military spending or single-payer health care!

John Edwards has actually proposed cuts in military spending, including elimination of wasteful or ineffective weapons programs (such as Star Wars).

All three of the Dem frontrunners have much more liberal/progressive proposals in the areas of health care and the environment than any of the major candidates of 2004, 2000 (i.e. more progressive than prez candidate Al Gore), 1996, 1992, 1988, etc...

Gotta give credit where it's due... Now we just have to elect one of them and hold their feet to the fire.

Check out Future Roots for organic rock'n'roll goodness from Oregon...

---

by: robinozretich @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 06:56:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not too surprising (0.00 / 0)

It's important to understand that most Democratic politicians are not populist in any way, shape, or form. That's just a truism that I can't imagine anyone would disagree with.

You're right that populism works, electorally. If I were running for president, I would talk about the price of gas every single day. I would bring it up constantly. I would note that oil prices have doubled - DOUBLED - in the last three years. And I'd win.

But that's just not the perspective Hillary, Obama, et al. are coming from.

---

by: Jason C. @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:38:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Different type of populism (0.00 / 0)

Huckabee's advocating the flat tax. It's still populist, but it's also an economic royalist position. And when push comes to shove, even the other GOP contenders may hit him on this.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 14:35:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An "anti-Huckabee strategy" (0.00 / 0)

Put Bush on the ballot. For all of his populist rhetoric, Huckabee is still a wingnut Bush Republican on issues of war. His Iraq strategy is essentially more of the same, and he calls for a massive increase to the Defense Department's already-bloated budget. Those are his weaknesses.

---

by: Zephyr @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:08:39 AM UTC

Which Republican wins NH? (0.00 / 0)

Assuming that Huckabee wins Iowa comfortably, can he win NH?  Has a southerner ever won a contested GOP NH primary?

---

by: benjamins @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:41:41 AM UTC

This is clearly an outlier poll (0.00 / 0)

on both sides, but especially the R. I will eat my "Red Sox 2007 World Series Champion" hat signed by David Ortiz if Huckabee is up 20 points. There's just no way, in part because he hasn't done much TV. Not enough people know him yet for him to have that much support. Newsweek should have re-surveyed.

Even if he is up by a few points though, he is extraordinarily vulnerable. A sudden front-runner with no money to fight back is just a sitting duck. Expect Romney and Guiliani to tear this guy limb from limb in the next couple weeks. They have nothing to lose, and Guiliani at least wants to change the subject.

---

by: ColoDem @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:23:56 AM UTC

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Candidates do not just go up by twenty points (except in certain circumstances), especially when all the media is talking about is how they vehemently supported letting a rapist out of prison who went on to rape and murder a couple. 

I also think the democratic side is rather suspect. I find it hard to believe that Edwards has slipped when all other polls show him gradually gaining in Iowa, and especially that he loses ground with definite caucus-goers, seeing as he has the oldest supporters and therefore the supporters most likely to caucus.

---

by: Kanamit @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 05:39:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Certain circumstances (0.00 / 0)

being things like the Dean-Gephardt ad war. The only thing that has happened in the campaign recently that could conceivably account for this is Romney's speech, but I highly doubt that's the cause, as he seemed to do a good job of appealing to the religious bigot base of the party.

---

by: Kanamit @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 05:44:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My thoughts (0.00 / 0)

first off, unlike many here, I'm absolutely frightened of a Huckabee nomination - I strongly believe he would be the toughest general election candidate against any Dem.  Remember how many people voted for Bush because they'd rather have a beer with him?  Same thing applies except that Huckabee, unlike Bush, is a terrific orator and thus even more dangerous.

Second, from everything I've read, Huckabee does NOT have a strong organization in Iowa.  A recent Politico article states:

Woolson is Huckabee's state director, press secretary and one-and-only Iowa strategist.

and:

As Huckabee's state director, press secretary and one-and-only Iowa strategist, Woolson has 12 field staffers splitting up the state, but he admitted that they don't yet have all 99 counties organized.

The staffers are recruiting precinct captains, but Woolson conceded that they've "got a lot of work to do at the precinct level."

and most amusing:

Woolson said he is working on a one-page memo explaining just that, but he is not sure if he left anything out. Then there is the companion DVD that he "was supposed to get done three weeks ago."

The list of supporters is growing, Woolson said, as Huckabee rises in the polls and attracts more media attention. Or at least Woolson thinks it is growing.

Asked if a master list of supporters exists, Woolson joked - twice - that "there better be." He then conceded that there is such a document - but that he hasn't "looked at it in a while."

As of right now, I still think Romney is the frontrunner, mostly because of his huge cash advantage over Huckabee, but Mike sure is hot on his heels.

Netroots for Gore

---

by: NYPopulist @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 05:39:09 AM UTC

Huckabee is very beatable in Iowa (0.00 / 0)

He can fall just as fast as he's risen, especially if he can't make up the ground game with his CoH issues.  It's still Romney's to lose, both Iowa and the nom.

---

by: Adam B. @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 06:26:56 AM UTC

Out-Huckabee him (0.00 / 0)

The Republican frontrunner winning on economic populism? Most of the Democratic frontrunners stuck pandering to donors instead of voters? What a topsy-turvy predicament!

The answer as to how you beat Huckabee: get the fuck out in front of him! Protect the left flank! The last thing you want is a series of debates where Huckabee blames NAFTA for the gutting of the U.S. manufacturing sector and Hillary responds by stuttering about how she just remembers charts. What a ridiculous possibility, right? We had better have a candidate who out-Huckabees Huckabee on NAFTA, while making it clear that economic populism, while an anomaly in the party and philosophical school of Reagan, fits well with the overall progressive worldview. We need to make the case that the solution for these bread-and-butter issues lies not in rugged individualism, but in common wealth.

I see many people saying how Huckabee scares them. I actually welcome a successful Huckabee candidacy, in the hopes that it will force a Democratic stampede to get to the left of him on *AFTA issues. It would be a very positive development to see both parties running against NAFTA and free trade, and that a new bipartisan consensus will emerge on those issues that actually reflects the positions and interests of the vast majority of Americans. Same goes for Ron Paul. If you have a Republican vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, then it pushes the Democrats in that direction, too. So I'm rooting for Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, and I hope their populism helps to buoy the good Democrats and sink the bad ones.

The ideological chart being spherical and continuous after all, you'll find that there are a lot more swing voters in the populist center, situated (let's say) between John Edwards and Mike Huckabee, than there are in the "centrist" center, situated between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Because nobody benefits from NAFTA besides old, golf-playing white men, and nobody supports NAFTA besides journalists.

http://www.funnyordie.com/jame...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:56:51 AM UTC