Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008?

[flere-imsaho]

We're about a month away (or less) from the first primaries, so I thought it might be fun to revisit this.

First, links to the previous (2) threads:

March, 2006
October, 2007

Again, it's who will, not who should.

[Crapshoot]

Guliani. Huckabee's rise is a dream come true for him, and is destroy's the "conservative alternate" in Romney (who is not going to win Iowa). If more than one candidate has one a state by Super Tuesday, I expect Guliani to take the ball and run home.

[Crapshoot]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jQ3MzE=&w=MQ==

A pretty good NR article suggesting that a brokered convention may actually be possible. From a pure entertainment standpoint, this ought to be encouraged.

[ISiddiqui]

Yay... I love strange and convoluted conventions. It makes for so much more fun .

[JPhillips]

I can't back off Huckabee now, although he's had a terrible week. I'm almost convinced that someone who isn't in the primaries will be the nominee.

[ISiddiqui]

Actually the Republican primary, IMO, REALLY depends on Iowa and NH. To a greater level than other years. If Romney wins Iowa, he's a major player. If he loses, he could be out of it by February 6th. If McCain can do well in New Hampshire, it could make for an interesting race by him. If not, then he's out.

I don't remember another Presidential primary race were SO much depended on Iowa and NH.

[flere-imsaho]

Looking at the previous polls, it's amazing to see Huckabee come out of nowhere for this one. Even in October he got one vote.

It seems like a four-horse race right now. Huckabee's obviously surging, and Romney's got a ton of strength. Giuliani's been hit badly by scandal but is still amongst the runners, and McCain's actually making a bit of a push. Thompson, after being touted as the GOP "savior" is seriously out to lunch.

For now, I cast my vote with Romney. Although Huckabee will likely win Iowa, I think Romney's got enough strength elsewhere to build up a head of steam. Plus, and this should not be discounted, he has more than the necessary cash to spin his results in any state to his advantage, and also keep his name in front.

[path12]

Aargh. I voted Huckabee, but actually am starting to think that McCain might come on like Kerry did for the Democrats last time.

[Jas_lov]

Should be Ron Paul because he's the only true small government conservative running. But since he doesn't want to nuke Iran or listen in on people's phone calls, he doesn't have much of a chance. Huckabee would get absolutely destroyed in a general election and McCain was finished the day he put his name on the Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill. I don't like Rudy's strategy of tanking the first 3 states. Fred Thompson isn't bad, but he's a dud. So that leaves flip flopping Mitt Romney who seems to be doing well in all 3 early states. I think he'll end up taking it, and get crushed in the general election.

[Crapshoot]

McCain is the best general candidate, better than Rudy, and with a sense of honesty that you won't get elsewhere. I have no doubt that he's the one guy who can stop a Dem candidate in what is shaping up to be a very strong Dem year.

[Schmidty]

Ron Paul is the only one I'd vote for.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

McCain is the best general candidate, better than Rudy, and with a sense of honesty that you won't get elsewhere. I have no doubt that he's the one guy who can stop a Dem candidate in what is shaping up to be a very strong Dem year.

I think whoever the Reps put up will get crushed like the NFC in the Super Bowl.

[JPhillips]

According to today's polls Huckabee has the lead in Iowa and South Carolina and is tied with Rudy nationally.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

McCain is the best general candidate, better than Rudy, and with a sense of honesty that you won't get elsewhere. I have no doubt that he's the one guy who can stop a Dem candidate in what is shaping up to be a very strong Dem year.

I agree... but I think he's pissed off too much of his base to have a chance. Even if he is pretty electable (especially against Hillary, where the Iraq issue doesn't tend to matter as much).

[st.cronin]

I think it will be either McCain or Rudy, probably Rudy. Romney is the only one in either field (other than the fringers like Kookooinch) that I would automatically be voting against in a general election.

[LloydLungs]

Mitt Romney actually has the two qualities that Republicans trashed the last two Democrats for. He's more robotic than Gore and a bigger flip flopper than Kerry. Still, my money's on him to get the nomination. No chance in the general.

[Buccaneer]

Are all you people that think the Rep will get crushed in the general will be by someone other than Obama or Hillary? If not, just...wow.

[sooner333]

I think Huckabee sealed Romney's fate. Romney went from the more conservative alternative with a chance against Guliani to the robotic Mormon who has no chance in the general. I think Huckabee will get the bid now because of momentum, but if not, it has opened the door more for Rudi and possibly McCain (if Romney gets desparate and ends up doing worse in NH because of it, which would lead to McCain jumping up and getting momentum).

[Buccaneer]

No way Huckabee gets the nomination. Way too many fatal talking points against him.

It is sad to so many intelligent people living by the flawed polls. Doesn't most of the previous elections mean anything to you? Take a look at the polls at this same time in the election season and you will see that you make any final predictions from them. Next thing you'll tell us is that you will start believing in exit polls.

[JPhillips]

Buc: The numbers may not be exact, but the trends matter. Look at Huckabee's line in Iowa, SC or nationally. It's impossible not to see that he's caught fire. He's taking off in the south generally and if he can sweep the south don't you think he can win it all?

And what fatal talking points does he have for the nomination? They'll maybe kill him in the general, but a lot of what he's saying does very well with focus groups. He fits in quite well with one segment of the Republican party.

And are you going to be kind enough to share what you think is going to happen or are you content just to throw stones?

[Buccaneer]

What I think will happen? The Rep have only nominated one social conservative in the past 48 years (Goldwater). Reagan wasn't one and Bush2 is just a neo-con puppet, which is different than running on a social con platform. This will only play to a small percentage, not the type of candidate that can draw millions of votes nationwide in the key states.

Look, I live in the most socially conservative city in the US and Huckabee is polling badly here (running something like 5th or 6th) - just like in most of the west. Take a big state like Texas and see that he is running 50% behind. Not mention 65% behind in Florida and Ohio.

I don't put much faith in polls or trends, and certainly not in national polls which don't mean much as far as the electoral college. Those pumping up Huckabee in this thread (namely those that are Dems) is just wishful thinking, knowing that he truly would lose to a Dem.

No, the Rep will play it safe because despite any lukewarm response to a particular candidate, it would be far, far more preferable than seeing a Dem, esp. Hillary, win.

[Jas_lov]

I don't put too much stock into the polls either. The media does though. It's all about getting people to show up. Huckabee can be at 20%, but if people aren't enthusiastic enough about him to go to the primaries then he won't win. Plus, he's only going to raise about $5 million this quarter, which will put him 6th among Republicans. Wouldn't someone taking off raise a little more money than that? Huckabee is being attacked left and right now, and deservedly so. He's an economic liberal. Romney is coming out with attack ads in Iowa and so is the Club for Growth. Tax Hike Mike is what they called him. Also, the fact that he lobbed to let rapists and murderers Wayne Dumond and Glen Green back on the streets doesn't bode well. He gave out more clemencies than the 3 previous Arkansas Governor's combined! He would get clobbered in a general election by any Democrat.

[Jas_lov]

And the most worthless polls of all are those stupid matchups which pit Giuliani vs. Clinton, Obama vs. McCain, etc. They're completely worthless at this point! So please don't reference those until we actually get a 1 on 1 matchup!

[sooner333]

Huckabee is catching fire because the alternatives aren't that good. Not quite as bad as Bill Clinton's field in '92, but we're not talking about a group filled with rising stars in the political world.

I think while he's a social conservative, his message might resonate well with the nation. Because of his record in Arkansas, he'll be able to show that he's the candidate that can reach across the aisle and get things done in Washington. People are fed up with Congress not getting anything done and it all goes back to the President. I think if Huckabee can channel Bush '00 and sound smarter, he's got a chance for the same reason Bush went into office.

That being said, it's not looking too hot for any of the Republicans, but Hillary will help any of them. It will also be Obama's first time to actually have to have a position on an issue (let's not forget, he faced the mighty Alan Keyes in his senate victory after the Ryan scandal broke).

[JPhillips]

Buc: Again you're wrong about my intentions. I think Huckabee is the most likable candidate the Republicans have. Have you seen him in an interview or on the stump? If he wins the nomination he'll be very difficult to beat. If it's all about who I'd rather run against I'd be pimping Romney or Rudy.

[albionmoonlight]

Back in March 2006, I guessed Mark Warner and Newt Gingrich. Shows what I know.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Buc: Again you're wrong about my intentions. I think Huckabee is the most likable candidate the Republicans have. Have you seen him in an interview or on the stump? If he wins the nomination he'll be very difficult to beat. If it's all about who I'd rather run against I'd be pimping Romney or Rudy.

His likability is seriously threatened since the Wayne DuMond story came out, and you can be sure that his Dem opponent will make something out of it, not to mention his AIDS quarantine comments.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, the Dumond thing hurts, but much to my surprise it doesn't seem to have effected his poll numbers at all. It would be a big issue in the general, but to Huckabee's benefit it would be a non-story by the fall unless some new revelations came out.

Huckabee's just fantastic on television. His debate answers are polished, but they have a sort of folky wisdom quality that really draws people. I don't know about his team, but on an individual level I think he's every bit as good a politician as Bill Clinton.

[ISiddiqui]

Huckabee's benefit it would be a non-story by the fall unless some new revelations came out.

I don't see that happening at all. It'd really blow up on him in the general, I'd imagine. I think the Dems are hoping they go up against Huckabee. The general public would be appauled that he hasn't really backed away from his HIV Quarentine comments (and personally I'm appauled at them).

[JPhillips]

You may be right. I just think he's so good in person that he could overcome it. I've been afraid of Huckabee for months. The only other Republican I think is as formidable is McCain, but I don't think he recover from losing Iowa, NH and SC.

[ISiddiqui]

The only way he overcomes it is by saying he made a horrible mistake and now he realizes that people with HIV should not be quarentined. But when he had the oppertunity to do so, he kind of dodged it, which isn't good.

And even then, it may still stick with him. The "base" may not mind, but the moderates would never forgive him for that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I don't put much faith in polls or trends, and certainly not in national polls which don't mean much as far as the electoral college. Those pumping up Huckabee in this thread (namely those that are Dems) is just wishful thinking, knowing that he truly would lose to a Dem.

I don't know if I'm one of those Dems that you view as "pumping him up", but if I am, allow me to clarify. I see Huckabee surging in the polls of selected (yet important) primary states, such as Iowa. I don't think this make him the front-runner (after all, I'm still putting my money on Romney), but he's definitely shown an increase in interest, which can be seen both in the polls and in the media attention paid to him.

Whether or not this translates to victories in some primary states (possibly to probably) or to getting the nomination (possibly to who knows?), is another story.

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

He's an economic liberal.

I keep seeing this phrase "economic liberal" batted around. What does it mean, exactly? Could you point to some prominent (current or historical) economic liberals?

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Back in March 2006, I guessed Mark Warner and Newt Gingrich. Shows what I know.

Agreed. I'm finding some of the changes over time very fascinating.

[Buccaneer]

Iowa and NH are not always important, it varies from election to election. Sometimes you can ignore and sometimes you can't. What I don't see is the commanding lead others have over Huck and Romney in many of the big electoral states disappearing overnight just because of Iowa.

larrymcg mentioned two of the fatals that would turn off even regular Reps.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Iowa and NH are not always important, it varies from election to election. Sometimes you can ignore and sometimes you can't. What I don't see is the commanding lead others have over Huck and Romney in many of the big electoral states disappearing overnight just because of Iowa.

Oh I agree. In fact, Iowa's really most important (by a long shot) for Huckabee. If he doesn't win there, then he'll be off the radar since he isn't even in the running in NH and thus will be lost in the shuffle by the time the other states start rolling in. If he wins in Iowa he'll get some more coverage that may likely help him bump up in a few states (though not NH, obviously). Even so, he's still got an uphill climb.

larrymcg mentioned two of the fatals that would turn off even regular Reps.

Unless this gets a lot of press in the next week, though, no one will be paying attention before the Iowa primary, so it only becomes a real factor if he wins Iowa and starts trying to grab a good number of other states. Again, it's definitely an uphill battle for him.

[ISiddiqui]

This election, though, without a real front runner, Iowa is MEGA-important. Basically it will make or break Huckabee's and Romney's campaigns. Still an uphill climb afterwards, but they have a fighting chance. If, say, by some way, Guiliani wins Iowa and NH, while not campaigning really in either of them, the race is over.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If, say, by some way, Guiliani wins Iowa and NH, while not campaigning really in either of them, the race is over.

I'll go out on a limb and say that, on the Republican side, that's about the only certain thing we can say at this point.

[JPhillips]

But it isn't just Iowa. Huckabee is surging in a number of pre-Super Tuesday states. He probably will get blasted in NH, but he'll probably win in Iowa and SC. So where does he stand in the other states?

In NV he's 6-8 points back and could win, but more likely will finish second.

The latest MI poll has him in a statistical tie for the lead. He'll probably win or finish second.

FL is the one state before Super Tuesday where he's got big problems, but one of the most recent polls has him only 14 points behind(Survey USA Dec. 4) If he wins Iowa, SC, Michigan and second in NV that will give him a big bump going into Florida.

(There are also contests in WY and ME before super Tuesday, but I can't find any polling)

It's quite possible that Huckabee will go into Super Tuesday with wins in IA, SC, MI, NV and a strong second in FL. A few candidates, likely Thompson, Tancredo,Hunter and maybe Romney, will drop out by that point and if enough break his way he'll do fine on Super Tuesday.

Huckabee's rise over the last month is really an incredible story. He doesn't have enough money, enough staff or enough backing from the big boys, but his message is resonating with primary voters.

[Blade6119]

I dont think Huck has a shot in the general, and will be very very suprised if he gets the rep nom. Hes trying to be cute, but i think hes more of a medial darling then actual threat to win the nomination.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

(There are also contests in WY and ME before super Tuesday, but I can't find any polling)

Being from Maine originally (and still having my folks live there), I'm going to say there's no way Huckabee wins Maine (and with 4 electoral votes, it probably doesn't matter). Maine's like a cross between Vermont & New Hampshire. It'll probably go with Romney or Giuliani with a solid showing for Paul.

I believe I've seen where Wyoming goes pretty solidly for Romney, but I could be wrong.

It's quite possible that Huckabee will go into Super Tuesday with wins in IA, SC, MI, NV and a strong second in FL. A few candidates, likely Thompson, Tancredo,Hunter and maybe Romney, will drop out by that point and if enough break his way he'll do fine on Super Tuesday.

Intriguing. For reference, he's the Republican primary schedule:

3 Jan: Iowa
5 Jan: Wyoming
8 Jan: New Hampshire
15 Jan: Michigan
19 Jan: Nevada, South Carolina
29 Jan: Florida
2 Feb: Maine

5 Feb (Super Tuesday): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia.

Then the rest after these (which I'm not going to type out).

Another interesting note is that all those states with primaries before 5 Feb get penalized half of their delegates by the GOP for having their primaries too early (except for Nevada, because its is non-binding).

Anyway, looking at the list, I could see this:

1. Huckabee gets Iowa, and gets some good initial press from this, with Romney as a close second.

2. Romney gets Wyoming and New Hampshire, and wins some of the press back.

3. No one cares about Michigan because of the primary cluster**** there this year.

4. Romney gets Nevada while Huckabee gets South Carolina. Several other candidates drop out at this point (Tancredo, Hunter, possibly Thompson, possibly McCain).

5. BANG! Giuliani picks up Florida, and it's a 3-horse race going into Super Tuesday (no one cares about Maine), with the plotlines of "Surprising!" (Huckabee), "Competent" (Romney) and "Resurgent" (Giuliani).

After that, who the heck knows?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I dont think Huck has a shot in the general, and will be very very suprised if he gets the rep nom. Hes trying to be cute, but i think hes more of a medial darling then actual threat to win the nomination.

I think Huckabee is like Edwards: interesting enough until you start to take a good look at his policies/track record.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think Huckabee is like Edwards: interesting enough until you start to take a good look at his policies/track record.

But, from a Republican standpoint, the guy who scares me more than anyone on the Democrat side is Edwards for precisely that reason.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I dont think Huck has a shot in the general, and will be very very suprised if he gets the rep nom. Hes trying to be cute, but i think hes more of a medial darling then actual threat to win the nomination.

Yes! He's currently being propped up by the media! The local shows in Iowa can't stop talking about Huckabee! The national media is all over him as the alternative to the frontrunners. Let's take Huckabee's name recognition and compare it to Ron Paul. Both complete unknowns when this started outside of their own state, and in Paul's case outside of his own district! Now, it's not even close. It's not like Huckabee has had tens of millions of dollars pour in to spread his name around the country. He raised $1 million in Q3 and he'll raise about $5-6 million this quarter. Shouldn't he be raising more if he's catching on and how will he run a national campaign without any money? Meanwhile, Paul raised $5 million in Q3 and he's already got $10 million this quarter and probably on track for $15-20 million overall, but nobody has heard of the guy! Giuliani will get in $10+ million again and Romney can reach into his pocket whenever need be. Huckabee supports a national smoking ban and he's an ultra conservative. He would get crushed in the general.

Huckabee is an economic liberal. He loves taxes and his fiscal policy is atrocious. The attacks are coming here in Iowa! Here's Romney's ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hei8iDK61do

Here's the Club for Growth ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNWoD2mzN04

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But it isn't just Iowa. Huckabee is surging in a number of pre-Super Tuesday states. He probably will get blasted in NH, but he'll probably win in Iowa and SC. So where does he stand in the other states?

Iowa is the big PR state. You win Iowa, you have the media talking about you as a "winner" and those that lose, especially big, tend to get viewed as "losers". Unless, of course, you can be close to the lead in Iowa and also do well in New Hampshire. If you get blasted in Iowa and NH, usually you can't recover.

[JPhillips]

In researching polls it seems pretty clear to me that Florida has to be a firewall state for Rudy. If he can't win there I can't see how he has enough momentum to get the nomination.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Huckabee is an economic liberal.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I keep seeing this phrase "economic liberal" batted around. What does it mean, exactly? Could you point to some prominent (current or historical) economic liberals?

#2

Edit: You know, I only ask because the concept of economic liberalism was arguably originated by Adam Smith, who put forward the (revolutionary at the time) idea that a free, unfettered market was the ideal economic model. Not to mention that the typical definition of "liberal" (small "L") usually runs along the lines of advocating the maximum possible freedom for individuals (which, in an economic sense could mean individual people, individual states, individual corporations or all three, i.e. "individual actors").

[Jas_lov]

No, you're right. I used the wrong definition. Economic liberalism would be more like Ron Paul than Mike Huckabee. Populist or statist is probably a better term for Huckabee. He likes higher taxes and more spending like the Democrats do. Of course, the neo-con wing of the Republican party has also been spending beyond control, so we're probably going to get much of the same as we have now either way.

[Warhammer]

I think what he means is some one who is going to spend liberally. Get down to it, Bush is an economic liberal and that is part of the reason why the right is not thrilled with him.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

He likes higher taxes and more spending like some Democrats do.

Fixed.

Of course, the neo-con wing of the Republican party has also been spending beyond control, so we're probably going to get much of the same as we have now either way.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think what he means is some one who is going to spend liberally. Get down to it, Bush is an economic liberal and that is part of the reason why the right is not thrilled with him.

"Spend liberally" and "economic liberal" are not the same thing. In fact, if we take the correct definitions for each, they're almost the exact opposite.

This is what happens when you turn a word, i.e. "liberal", into a catch-all label for "bad". You end up, by association, calling the dominant economic philosophy of the 20th century, the philosophy to which you probably subscribe, ironically, that of free-market capitalism, bad by association.

Here's the answer: Mike Huckabee does not understand fiscal restraint and is happy to raise taxes. George Bush does not understand fiscal restraint, but it adamant about lowering taxes (mostly on top earners).

Sorry to be pedantic.

[chesapeake]

Huckabee is surging at the right time, but the nasty-grams from his GOP competitors are just starting run on the air. It'll take a little time to see if they stick.

[ISiddiqui]

On the liberalism debate, it actually is quite fascinating (philsophically speaking) to see where liberalism split from the classic liberalism and the modern (American) liberalism, generally disagreeing on how best to have the individual be truely free:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

By the end of the 19th century, a growing body of liberal thought asserted that, in order to be free, individuals needed access to the requirements of fulfillment, including protection from exploitation and education.

Despite some dispute whether there was an actual laissez-faire capitalist state in existence at the time [1], the Great Depression of the 1930s shook public faith in "laissez-faire capitalism" and "the profit motive," leading many to conclude that the unregulated markets could not produce prosperity and prevent poverty. Many liberals were troubled by the political instability and restrictions on liberty that they believed were caused by the growing relative inequality of wealth. Key liberals of this persuasion, such as John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, argued for the creation of a more elaborate state apparatus to serve as the bulwark of individual liberty, permitting the continuation of capitalism while protecting the citizens against its perceived excesses.

Key liberal thinkers, such as Lujo Brentano, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, Thomas Hill Green, John Maynard Keynes, Bertil Ohlin and John Dewey, described how a government should intervene in the economy to protect liberty while avoiding socialism.

Contrary to as some say that people like FDR "hijacked" the term liberal, it seems to be a different view on how best to protect individual freedom (which seems to be the underlying basis of liberalism)