Huckabee

Last night’s results:

Wisconsin (99% reporting)
Dems — Obama 58%, Clinton 41%
GOP — McCain 55%, Huckabee 37%, Paul 5%

Hawaii (100% reporting)
Dems — Obama 76%, Clinton 24%

Washington
GOP Caucus (9 Feb, 96% reporting) — McCain 26%, Huckabee 24%, Paul 22%, Romney 15%
GOP Primary (19 Feb, 57% reporting) — McCain 49%, Huckabee 20%, Paul 20%, Romney 7%

If I’m not mistaken, that means that Obama has swept all the primaries/caucuses since Super Tuesday, that we can expect some ugly campaigning by Hillary between now and the Ohio & Texas primaries in two weeks…and that Washington Republicans can’t count votes.

I realize that given the vagaries of superdelegatedom, it’s very difficult to keep an accurate running count of how many delegates the Dem candidates have ahead of the convention.  However, could we perhaps get some consistency in the reckoning?

PoliticalWire has a comparison that highlights the discrepancies:

NBC: Obama 1,078, Clinton 969
CBS: Obama 1,242, Clinton 1,175
ABC: Obama 1,232, Clinton 1,205
CNN: Obama 1,215, Clinton 1,190
AP: Obama 1,223, Clinton 1,198

Over on the GOP side, Reliable Politics quotes McCain’s campaign manager as observing:

The results from [Tuesday's] primary elections in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, DC, make it mathematically impossible for Governor Huckabee to secure the Republican nomination for president. He now needs 950 delegates to secure the required 1,191. But in the remaining contests there are only 774 delegates available. He would need to win 123% of remaining delegates.

CNN’s reporting:

Dems

• DC (98% in): Obama 75%, Hillary 24%
• Maryland (62% in) Obama 60%, Hillary 37%
• Virginia (99% in) Obama 64%, Hillary 35%

GOP

• DC: McCain 68%, Huckabee 17%, Paul 8%, Romney 6%
• Maryland: McCain 55%, Huckabee 30%, Romney 6%, Paul 6%
• Virginia: McCain 50$, Huckabee 41%, Paul 5%, Romney 3%

That loss in Virginia has got to hurt Huckabee’s hopes for a miracle.

Did a few folks not get the memo that the GOP is supposed to come-together around McCain?

• Kansas caucuses: Huckabee 60%, McCain 24%, Paul 11%, Romney 3%
• Louisiana primary: Huckabee 43%, McCain 42%, Romney 6%, Paul 5%, Giuliani 1%
• Washington caucuses McCain 26%, Huckabee 24%, Paul 21%, Romney 17%

Even in the one state where McCain “won”, he still received fewer votes than did candidates who have already dropped out.

The Kansas and Washington results have me wondering if it might be easier now for some small-ell libertarian types to vote for Ron Paul, given that the nominee is all-but-decided  (or is it a function of lower turnout and/or the caucus effect).   However, I also find the disconnect between the Louisiana caucus and the Louisiana primary results interesting.

So much for coming together around the nominee=apparent. Seen in the Wall Street Journal (subscription link):

Kansas Republicans gave the former Arkansas governor a comfortable victory over Mr. McCain in Saturday’s GOP caucuses.

Mr. Huckabee won 60% vote, compared with 24% for Mr. McCain in the first clear matchup between the two since Mitt Romney dropped out of the race Thursday. Texas Congressman Ron Paul had 11%.

Mr. Huckabee won all 36 of the state’s delegates at stake Saturday although Mr. McCain holds a commanding lead in the delegate count.

“I didn’t major in math,” Mr. Huckabee told a cheering crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference meeting earlier in the day. “I majored in miracles, and I still believe in them.”

A few thoughts:

• Conventional wisdom is that Thompson won the debate.  I’m not sure that I’d go quite that far, and I’d have to wonder how much of that assessment is Fox-generated hype.  Notwithstanding my reservations, however, he did come across as a straight-talking, good ol’ boy who should be doing far better than his recent polling would indicate.
   
• If Romney weren’t well-financed and if he didn’t have extensive ground operations in place, I’d say, “put a fork in him, he’s done”.  He’s coming across as either a candidate in search of a message, or a politician who’s trying to be all things to all people.  He seems to be having problems carving a viable niche in the spectrum of messages, with the more popular messages having been claimed by other candidates.
   
  If Romney could credibly communicate the idea that he’d be effective at cleaning up waste and advancing a reasonably conservative message in the face of a hostile Congress, allowing him to build upon his resume of Massachusetts governor and Salt Lake City Olympic reformer, he might have a shot.  However, that shot is waning as Giuliani solidifies on the “I’m most likely to shift the purple states red” message.
   
• I can’t decide whether Ron Paul was just his usual nutty self, or if Fox carefully worked to make him seem extra-nutty.   I’m leaning towards the latter, given how the questions he faced were more in the “one of these things is not like another / one of these things is not the same” vein, from which he struggled to shift to answering policy questions handed to others, and given how giddy the commentators were over Paul’s low reaction numbers from their viewer’s panel…but Paul comes across as  a nut on his own, even without Fox’s assistance.
   
  If Fox News were as fair and balanced as it claims, they’d have a reasonable sounding Paul supporter on to explain why Paul’s message is appealing to his supporters (sometimes in spite of Paul’s quirks).
   
  Sadly, the notion that a nontrivial portion of the American electorate craves a small-government, pro-individual-liberties candidate so much that they’d tolerate quirks in their candidate, seems to finally be getting lost in Paul’s nuttiness.
   
• I have to give props to Huckabee for deflecting criticism and the spotlighting of the unconservativeness / un-neoconness of his positions while still coming across as a nice, likeable guy.
   
• If anyone won the debate, I’d have to name McCain.  He might not have won the battle of the soundbites (a title that Thompson did earn), but he seems to be solidifying his framing as a Republican partisans might not like, but who is viewed as most electable by partisans.

As might be expected, the political two-thirds of the U.S. sector in blogsville is abuzz with some quick dissection of yesterday’s caucuses, before turning speculation to Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire.

One comment that caught my eye was over at Politico, where it was observed:

If Romney loses again in New Hampshire, where he had until recently been leading, his candidacy will go on life support.

You know….I realize that the ‘08 campaign cycle is unique, and it’s probably risky to attempt to draw comparisons to prior elections.   However, I can’t help but be reminded of ‘96, where Buchanan did surprisingly well in Iowa and New Hampshire, before fading in more relevant states, permitting Dole to win the nomination.

Buchanan was also a populist figure with strong conservative Christian credentials, although the similarity ends when you contrast Buchanan’s abrasiveness to Huckabee’s nice guy exterior.

Ah well…just a random thought on my part.   Let the circus continue!

So, tomorrow is the Iowa caucus, and as might be expected, folks are making their final predictions.

The most interesting of these, I think, are Robert Novak’s, who’s expecting:

• On the GOP side: Romney first, Huckabee second, Thompson third, McCain fourth, and Ron Paul fifth
   
• …however there’s potential for quite a bit of volatility among the number 3, 4, and 5 positions.  (”Ron Paul could make a splash, as well. He’s in fifth place in most polls, but his supporters are unmatched in enthusiasm and dedication. A third-place finish for Paul is not out of the question.”)
   
• Among the Dems: Obama first, Edwards second, Clinton third, and Richardson fourth-but-irrelevant.
   
• Expect Obama and Edwards to benefit the most from Iowa’s 15% viability rule, since Clinton is rarely anyone’s second choice.  (You apparently love Hillary or hate her.  Edwards appears to be the most popular choice among supporters for the also-rans.)
   
• Novak also mentions the possibility that the rest of the Democratic field could drop out, perhaps even before New Hampshire next week.

  (Personally, I’d think that Richardson, Dodd, and Biden would hold on in the off chance of a miracle in New Hampshire, but it’s likely that they’ll admit non-viability very soon now.  Kucinich and Gravel I’d think would hang on, out of nuttiness and orneriness respectively.)

In the aftermath of my deluded interest in Huckabee, an article I found (via RedState) at Ace of Spades interests me:

Not that what one blogger thinks matters that much, but if Huckabee gets the nomination, I’m voting Democratic. It’s not just an idle threat; I just won’t vote for him and in fact won’t even vote third party or stay home. I’ll vote for the Democratic candidate, even Hillary. I won’t be a party to selling out everything the party is supposed to stand for to a liberal ideology. If we’re going to have eight years of liberal rule, I’d rather the Democratic Party be governing, so at least they can take the blame.

You know, if somehow the Dems could be provoked into getting on the verge of splitting, just as the social-conservative and fiscal-conservative groups occasionally seem to be toying with in the GOP, the multi-party political system I keep hoping for could be tantalizingly close to happening.

(Note: as of this writing, I haven’t yet caught up with today’s GOP debate)

In a few recent posts, I’ve mentioned my intrigue with Huckabee as a GOP candidate. With some of the recent press and online commentary, I think I ought to either apologize, or at least better explain that intrigue.

Politically, I’m mostly a centrist. I’m socially liberal, fiscally conservative, both tempered by realism (or delusions of realism), and I’m generally distrustful of government as we know it. Due to a lack of viable political candidates with similar views, I tend to use different criteria to govern how I’ll vote. And, I tend to prefer Washington when neither major political party has a monopoly of power.

Thus, as much as it pains me after the past seven years to say it, for the next year or so, I’m probably going to sound like a Republican when it comes to armchair-quarterbacking the Presidential race. Given the likelihood of a Democratic Congress (and with a chance of the Dems getting to 60 seats in the Senate), I’d like to see a President in office who will keep the excesses of a Democratic Congress in check.

In terms of satisfying my social liberal / fiscal conservative / realistic desires, Ron Paul and Chris Dodd arguably come closest. However, Dodd seems unlikely to be viable and reeks too much of being a professional politician. And Dr. Paul….well, he fails the “realistic” test so soundly that his unviability hardly bears mentioning. So, I’m left at looking at other criteria.

The next President is going to inherit a heckuva mess from the Bush administration. American diplomatic credibility abroad is shot. Credibility of the Presidency with much of the American public is similarly abysmal. A mess has been made of civil rights in the name of the War on Terror. There are a ton of bills coming due from the spending binge the federal government has been on for the past seven years. And, while the political polarization of the past decade is helpful in keeping reigning in the feds from making too much mischief, the current level of partisan stress can’t be a good thing for the country.

All of the major candidates probably have it in them to face those challenges. Some candidates are probably stronger in certain elements of that list than others, but none of the frontrunners have me feeling a desire to emigrate should they be elected.

But, that list of challenges is part of why I’m intrigued by Huckabee. He comes across as a nice, credible, principled guy…and that, I suspect, could go a long way towards addressing the credibility and civility issues the next President will face. A strong, but humble President would serve us well right about now…and that’s Huckabee’s appeal for me.

Yes, Huckabee’s stand on many social issues trouble me. However, I’m not terribly concerned about that, because of my assumption that Congress will have a relatively liberal Democratic flavor at least in 2009 and 2010.

If we were looking at a socially conservative Congress likely being in power, then yes, I’d be very uncomfortable with the idea of a Huckabee theocracy, just as I have been uncomfortable with the Bush Junior Imperial Reign.

While I’m on a roll, looking at the other viable candidates in the reconstruction/rebuilding mold:

• Romney—I like his talking points in regards to fiscal conservatism, and I suspect that he’s more realistic than the what he’s able to portray in the primary campaign. However, he reeks too much of being a poll-driven politician.
   
• Giuliani—Earns brownie points in my book for social moderatism/realism and for coming across as more human than politician. He’d give Hillary a run for her money in Connecticut, meaning that the Presidential candidates might finally pay some attention to this state. However, is his manner really conducive for the rebuilding challenges that he’d face in the White House?
   
• McCain—Deserves Kudos for fiscal conservatism, and for sticking to his guns on Iraq recently. However his manner too doesn’t seem conducive to fixing the diplomatic damage done in recent years.
   
• Thompson—In addition to the warm-and-fuzzy criteria that seems to be dominating my thoughts recently, I also want to see a President who’s a competent administrator. Thompson hasn’t yet conveyed his qualities in that regard to me.
   
• Ron Paul—Shouldn’t be on this list, as I don’t consider him to be viable. The criticism about his not being a “good” libertarian may also have merit. However, given the power of mainstream media to shape political discourse, and given that media attention is driven by numbers… I will likely vote for Dr. Paul in February, in an effort to help keep the media reporting on small-ell libertarian ideas that much longer.

Among Dems:

• Dodd is the Democratic candidate I probably would like the most, if I were going to participate in the D’s primary in February. He’s well rounded and respectable, and at least somewhat realistic…except about his chances of winning the nomination. Plus, there is a definite politican’s stench about him.
   
• Edwards I probably couldn’t bring myself to vote for under any circumstance for a very simple reason: I’m an actuary in the insurance industry, and Edwards can hardly go a day without blaming insurers for all that is wrong with the country.
   
• Obama probably satisfies the likability criterion, and his history of “crossing the aisle” would aid in the rebuilding needed. However, his relative inexperience tempers any thoughts I might have of him being realistic.
   
• Hillary Clinton impressed me both times I’ve met her, and she strikes me as being a very able politician. However, the idea of her in the White House with Democrats controlling Capitol Hill is particularly scary to me. Plus, I recall an comment I encountered recently which argued that Bush-43 was elected because his supporters though his administration would be just like his dad’s. I wonder if the same lazy thinking might be at work in generating support for Clinton, with possibly equally disasterous consequences at risk.

But back to Huckabee (and to wrap this post up)—Yes, I’ve heard a lot in the past couple of weeks that troubles me about Huck. That is, of course, a sign of Dems and the rest of the GOP field doing their jobs in trying to compete against the guy, and therefore it’s important to keep the salt-shaker around when considering these newest revelations.

However, after fifteen years of scandals, shenanigans, and abuse of power by the White House…is it too surprising that the appearance of potential respectability might be appealing?