April 16, 2014

Poll Watch: McClatchy-Marist 2016 Republican Nomination Survey

McClatchy-Marist 2016 GOP Nomination Poll 

  • Mike Huckabee 13% (13%)
  • Jeb Bush 13% (8%) {8%} [10%] (10%)
  • Chris Christie 12% (13%) {16%} [18%] (15%)
  • Rand Paul 12% (9%) {9%} [12%] (9%)
  • Paul Ryan 12% (9%) {12%} [11%] (13%)
  • Marco Rubio 7% (12%) {7%} [7%] (12%)
  • Scott Walker 5% (7%) {4%} [4%] (2%)
  • Ted Cruz 4% (5%) {5%} [10%] (7%)
  • Bobby Jindal 4% {3%} (1%)
  • Rick Santorum 3% (2%) {5%} [4%] (2%)
  • Rick Perry 3% (2%) {6%} [3%] (4%)
  • John Kasich 0% (1%)
  • Undecided 14% (12%) {25%} [13%] (25%)

Survey of 416 registered Republicans and GOP-leaning Independents was conducted April 7-10, 2014The margin of error is +/- 4.8 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted February 4-9, 2014 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 12-14, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 3-5, 2013 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 15-18, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 8:00 am. Filed under 2016, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

April 15, 2014

Poll Watch: Loras College Iowa 2016 Republican Caucus Survey

Loras College Iowa 2016 GOP Caucus Poll 

  • Mike Huckabee 14.7%
  • Jeb Bush 10.7%
  • Rand Paul 8.5%
  • Paul Ryan 8.3%
  • Chris Christie 8.0%
  • Ted Cruz 6.2%
  • Marco Rubio 4.7%
  • Rick Santorum 4.7%
  • Scott Walker 4.7%
  • Rick Perry 3.0%
  • John Kasich 0.7%
  • Other 0.7%
  • Undecided 23.8%

Survey of 600 likely Iowa GOP primary voters was conducted April 7-8, 2014. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 6:22 pm. Filed under 2016, Iowa Caucuses, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

April 10, 2014

Poll Watch: PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 Republican Primary Survey

PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 GOP Primary Poll

  • Mike Huckabee 22% {19%} [20%] (15%)
  • Jeb Bush 18% {12%} [15%] (14%) {15%} [16%] (9%)
  • Chris Christie 12% {15%} [11%] (17%) {19%} [20%] (10%)
  • Ted Cruz 12% {14%} [8%] (11%) {12%} [12%]
  • Paul Ryan 9% {4%} [8%] (11%) {7%} [7%] (12%)
  • Rand Paul 9% {12%} [14%] (14%) {13%} [12%] (6%)
  • Scott Walker 7% {6%} [4%] (3%) {5%} [1%]
  • Marco Rubio 5% {5%} [7%] (9%) {10%} [10%] (21%)
  • Bobby Jindal 2% {1%} [3%] (5%) {3%} [6%]
  • Someone else/Not sure 6% {12%} [9%] (13%) {11%} [13%] (8%)

Among Men

  • Mike Huckabee 19% {15%} [15%] (14%)
  • Ted Cruz 16% {16%} [7%] (14%) {15%} [16%]
  • Jeb Bush 15% {13%} [18%] (14%) {14%} [14%] (11%)
  • Chris Christie 12% {16%} [14%] (18%) {18%} [19%] (10%)
  • Scott Walker 10% {7%} [6%] (4%) {6%} [1%]
  • Paul Ryan 8% {3%} [5%] (10%) {5%} [6%] (12%)
  • Rand Paul 8% {13%} [19%] (14%) {15%} [16%] (9%)
  • Marco Rubio 6% {3%} [7%] (7%) {10%} [9%] (22%)
  • Bobby Jindal 1% {2%} [3%] (6%) {3%} [5%]
  • Someone else/Not sure 4% {12%} [6%] (9%) {7%} [10%] (7%)

Among Women

  • Mike Huckabee 24% {24%} [25%] (16%)
  • Jeb Bush 21% {11%} [13%] (13%) {16%} [18%] (8%)
  • Chris Christie 12% {13%} [7%] (17%) {19%} [20%] (10%)
  • Rand Paul 11% {10%} [9%] (14%) {11%} [8%] (4%)
  • Paul Ryan 9% {5%} [12%] (11%) {8%} [9%] (12%)
  • Ted Cruz 7% {11%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%]
  • Marco Rubio 5% {7%} [7%] (11%) {10%} [10%] (19%)
  • Scott Walker 3% {5%} [2%] (1%) {4%} [0%]
  • Bobby Jindal 2% {1%} [3%] (4%) {3%} [7%]
  • Someone else/Not sure 7% {14%} [13%] (17%) {15%} [17%] (10%)

Survey of 314 Republican primary voters was conducted April 3-6, 2014. The margin of error is +/- 5.5 percentage points. Political ideology: 39% {37%} [35%] (38%) {37%} [36%] (44%) Very conservative; 32% {35%} [33%] (40%) {39%} [36%] (35%) Somewhat conservative; 21% {20%} [22%] (16%) {16%} [21%] (13%) Moderate; 6% {4%} [7%] (4%) {7%} [4%] (6%) Somewhat liberal; 3% {3%} [3%] (2%) {1%} [3%] (1%) Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted March 6-9, 2014 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 6-9, 2014 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 9-12, 2014 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 5-8, 2013 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 8-11, 2013 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 6-9, 2012 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 3:24 pm. Filed under 2016, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

April 9, 2014

Poll Watch: Suffolk University Iowa 2016 Republican Caucus Survey

Suffolk University Iowa 2016 GOP Caucus Poll 

  • Mike Huckabee 11.02%
  • Jeb Bush 10.24%
  • Rand Paul 10.24%
  • Ted Cruz 9.45%
  • Ben Carson 8.66%
  • Chris Christie 7.09%
  • Paul Ryan 6.30%
  • Condoleezza Rice 5.51%
  • Marco Rubio 5.51%
  • Scott Walker 5.51%
  • Sarah Palin 5.51%
  • Rick Santorum 5.51%
  • Rick Perry 3.15%
  • Bobby Jindal 3.15%
  • Undecided 3.15%

Survey of 127 GOP caucus-goers was conducted April 3-8, 2014. The margin of error is +/- 8.7 percentage points.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 2:20 pm. Filed under 2016, Iowa Caucuses, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

March 29, 2014

Romney Redux?

There are a number of serious Republicans interested in running for president, at this early point, in two years.

Some of them, such as Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio don’t seem to have a broad enough base that would enable them to win the nomination, but they have motivated and vocal supporters, and if they run, they will be notable factors in the Republican primaries and caucuses.

Others, including Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry might be seen as figures of the past, and might not run (although Governor Perry is making serious noises about another run in 2016).

2012 vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, Governors Susana Martinez, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and John Kasich are frequently mentioned, but have yet to indicate their serious interest in 2016.

The two figures who would probably be frontrunners, Governor Chris Christie and former Governor Jeb Bush, have current political problems to overcome (although it is more likely than not that one of these two men will be the GOP nominee).

On the other hand, if the field is large, the primaries and caucuses very bitter, AND the frontrunners falter, the resulting stalemate might propel forward a name which has not really been mentioned seriously, 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, back into contention.

Romney was perhaps the wrong candidate for 2012 because his persona played into the negative Democratic media campaign that year, and because he did not, at the end, assemble as competitive campaign as did Barack Obama. But 2016 promises a very different political environment. After two terms of Mr. Obama, the voters may be weary of any Democrat (as they were in 2008 of any Republican). We must await the results of the 2014 midterm elections to draw more precise and verified conclusions, but Obamacare almost alone seems to be moving the electorate to the GOP, and threatening to ruin the Democratic Party brand for years to come.

In spite of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, changing our approach to the Middle East by diminishing our long alliance with Israel in a trade-off for (so-far) feckless relationships with other players in the region, and reducing our military and defenses, Mr. Obama’s numbers are very low in polls about his performance in foreign policy. He has been out-dueled so far in his relationship with Russian President Putin. His first term secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016, but, although she will surely try to do so, it might be difficult for her to separate herself from Mr. Obama and her own actions (including her “re-set” with Russia) when working for him. (Remember Hubert Humphrey attempting to do this in 1968?)

Mr. Romney’s assertion that Russia and Mr. Putin were a major problem for the U.S., an assertion he made in the 2012 campaign, and subsequently ridiculed by Mr. Obama, looks rather prescient these days. So do many of his views on the domestic issues he ran on in 2012.

Only twice in the past 100 years has a defeated Republican presidential nominee been renominated by his party. Thomas Dewey lost in 1944, and lost again in 1948. Richard Nixon lost in 1960, but won in 1968 (and again in 1972).

In spite of his recent public visibility, there are no indications that Mitt Romney is even thinking about running again in 2016, nor under present circumstances, would he be considered a serious candidate. But in spite of the large number of major GOP candidates, the Republican field is not yet in focus for one of them to win the nomination.

Considering Mr. Romney’s stature, it is not without some curious interest to speculate, and it’s only speculation, that, in certain circumstances, he might resolve a GOP convention stalemate, or even earlier, return to the campaign field.

I’m just saying.

_________________________________________________________

-Copyright (c) by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

March 14, 2014

Poll Watch: PPP (D) 2016 Republican Nomination Survey

PPP (D) 2016 GOP Nomination Poll 

Given the choices of Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Scott Walker, who would you most like to see as the GOP candidate for President in 2016?

  • Mike Huckabee 18% [16%] (13%) (11%) {15%} [11%] (17%)
  • Jeb Bush 15% [14%] (10%) (13%) {14%} [12%] (17%)
  • Chris Christie 14% [13%] (19%) (13%) {14%} [14%] (21%)
  • Rand Paul 14% [11%] (11%) (10%) {5%} [7%] (4%)
  • Ted Cruz 11% [8%] (14%)
  • Marco Rubio 6% [8%] (7%) (22%) {21%} [18%] (10%)
  • Paul Ryan 5% [8%] (10%) (15%) {16%} [12%] (7%)
  • Scott Walker 5% [6%] (4%)
  • Bobby Jindal 4% [5%] (3%) (4%) {3%} (3%)
  • Someone else/Not sure 9% [10%] (10%) (8%) {7%} [7%] (10%)

If Mike Huckabee was not a candidate for President in 2016, who would you support, given the choices of Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Scott Walker?

  • Jeb Bush 21% [18%] (12%) {14%} [11%] (13%) {15%} [12%]
  • Rand Paul 15% [13%] (12%) {16%} [17%] (16%) {14%} [17%]
  • Chris Christie 14% [17%] (23%) {16%} [14%] (13%) {15%} [15%]
  • Ted Cruz 13% [11%] (15%) {15%} [20%] (12%) {7%}
  • Paul Ryan 9% [9%] (11%) {11%} [10%] (13%) {9%} [12%]
  • Marco Rubio 8% [8%] (8%) {10%} [10%] (10%) {16%} [21%]
  • Scott Walker 5% [7%] (6%) [3%]
  • Bobby Jindal 5% [5%] (4%) {6%} [4%] (4%) {3%} [4%]
  • Someone else/Not sure 10% [11%] (10%) {8%} [9%] (13%) {15%} [10%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net} 

  • Mike Huckabee 62% [64%] (65%) (71%) {70%} [73%] (69%) / 18% [18%] (14%) (12%) {15%} [15%] (15%) {+44%}
  • Paul Ryan 58% [58%] {67%} [75%] (78%) {76%} [74%] (47%) / 17% [18%] {13%} [11%] (9%) {11%} [15%] (11%) {+41%} 
  • Rand Paul 56% [58%] (58%) {58%} [60%] (61%) {55%} [53%] (42%) / 17% [21%] (15%) {16%} [16%] (13%) {20%} [22%] (20%) {+39%}
  • Jeb Bush 53% [56%] (49%) {56%} [51%] (59%) {59%} [63%] (71%) / 21% [18%] (22%) {17%} [16%] (12%) {15%} [14%] (13%) {+32%}
  • Marco Rubio 46% {57%} [62%] (59%) {60%} [62%] (53%) / 19% {13%} [10%] (12%) {11%} [11%] (10%) {+27%}
  • Ted Cruz 43% [45%] (43%) {27%} / 20% [20%] (21%) {13%} {+23%}
  • Chris Christie 41% [40%] (47%) {42%} [41%] (42%) {44%} [49%] (62%) / 37% [38%] (29%) {29%} [29%] (27%) {29%} [28%] (12%) {+4%}
Survey of 542 Republican primary voters was conducted March 6-9, 2014.  The margin of error is +/- 4.2 percentage points.  Political ideology: 37% [39%] (39%) {42%} [37%] (40%) {38%} [35%] (41%) {39%} [38%] (41%) Somewhat conservative; 35% [37%] (34%) {34%} [39%] (35%) {36%} [39%] (41%) {37%} [39%] (36%) Very conservative; 21% [17%] (21%) {20%} [18%] (17%) {19%} [19%] (14%) {16%} [16%] (16%) Moderate; 6% [4%] (4%) {3%} [4%] (5%) {5%} [5%] (2%) {5%} [6%] (4%) Somewhat liberal; 1% [3%] (2%) {2%} [1%] (3%) {2%} [1%] (1%) {2%} [1%] (3%) Very liberal. Results from the poll conducted January 23-26, 2014 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 13-15, 2013 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 29-31, 2013 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 25-26, 2013 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 19-21, 2013 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 6-9, 2013 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 27-30, 2013 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 31 – February 3, 2013 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted January 3-6, 2013 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 30 – December 2, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted April 12-15, 2012 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 12:49 pm. Filed under 2016, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

March 12, 2014

Poll Watch: PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 Republican Primary Survey

PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 GOP Primary Poll

  • Mike Huckabee 19% [20%] (15%)
  • Chris Christie 15% [11%] (17%) {19%} [20%] (10%)
  • Ted Cruz 14% [8%] (11%) {12%} [12%]
  • Jeb Bush 12% [15%] (14%) {15%} [16%] (9%)
  • Rand Paul 12% [14%] (14%) {13%} [12%] (6%)
  • Scott Walker 6% [4%] (3%) {5%} [1%]
  • Marco Rubio 5% [7%] (9%) {10%} [10%] (21%)
  • Paul Ryan 4% [8%] (11%) {7%} [7%] (12%)
  • Bobby Jindal 1% [3%] (5%) {3%} [6%]
  • Someone else/Not sure 12% [9%] (13%) {11%} [13%] (8%)

Among Men

  • Chris Christie 16% [14%] (18%) {18%} [19%] (10%)
  • Ted Cruz 16% [7%] (14%) {15%} [16%]
  • Mike Huckabee 15% [15%] (14%)
  • Jeb Bush 13% [18%] (14%) {14%} [14%] (11%)
  • Rand Paul 13% [19%] (14%) {15%} [16%] (9%)
  • Scott Walker 7% [6%] (4%) {6%} [1%]
  • Paul Ryan 3% [5%] (10%) {5%} [6%] (12%)
  • Marco Rubio 3% [7%] (7%) {10%} [9%] (22%)
  • Bobby Jindal 2% [3%] (6%) {3%} [5%]
  • Someone else/Not sure 12% [6%] (9%) {7%} [10%] (7%)

Among Women

  • Mike Huckabee 24% [25%] (16%)
  • Chris Christie 13% [7%] (17%) {19%} [20%] (10%)
  • Jeb Bush 11% [13%] (13%) {16%} [18%] (8%)
  • Ted Cruz 11% [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%]
  • Rand Paul 10% [9%] (14%) {11%} [8%] (4%)
  • Marco Rubio 7% [7%] (11%) {10%} [10%] (19%)
  • Paul Ryan 5% [12%] (11%) {8%} [9%] (12%)
  • Scott Walker 5% [2%] (1%) {4%} [0%]
  • Bobby Jindal 1% [3%] (4%) {3%} [7%]
  • Someone else/Not sure 14% [13%] (17%) {15%} [17%] (10%)

Survey of 392 Republican primary voters was conducted March 6-9, 2014. The margin of error is +/- 5.0 percentage points. Political ideology: 37% [35%] (38%) {37%} [36%] (44%) Very conservative; 35% [33%] (40%) {39%} [36%] (35%) Somewhat conservative; 20% [22%] (16%) {16%} [21%] (13%) Moderate; 4% [7%] (4%) {7%} [4%] (6%) Somewhat liberal; 3% [3%] (2%) {1%} [3%] (1%) Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted February 6-9, 2014 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 9-12, 2014 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 5-8, 2013 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 8-11, 2013 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 6-9, 2012 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 5:34 pm. Filed under 2016, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

February 27, 2014

Poll Watch: PPP (D) Iowa 2016 Republican Caucus Survey

PPP (D) Iowa 2016 GOP Caucus Poll

  • Mike Huckabee 17% (16%{15%} [17%] (16%
  • Rand Paul 14% [18%] (15%) {5%} [11%] (9%)
  • Jeb Bush 13% [14%] (14%) {11%} [8%] (10%)
  • Chris Christie 10% [16%] (12%) {12%} [16%] (15%)
  • Ted Cruz 10% [10%]
  • Paul Ryan 9% [15%] (10%) {12%} [6%] (5%)
  • Scott Walker 7%
  • Bobby Jindal 7% [2%] (3%)
  • Marco Rubio 3% [11%] (16%) {12%} [10%] (7%)
  • Someone else/Not sure 11% [7%] (7%) {8%} [8%] (10%)

Among Men

  • Mike Huckabee 19% (14%) {13%} [13%] (11%)
  • Rand Paul 14% [21%] (14%) {6%} [16%] (10%)
  • Scott Walker 11%
  • Ted Cruz 10% [13%]
  • Jeb Bush 9% [13%] (16%) {11%} [8%] (9%)
  • Bobby Jindal 9% [4%] (2%)
  • Paul Ryan 8% [11%] (10%) {7%} [8%] (3%)
  • Chris Christie 7% [17%] (12%) {14%} [15%] (17%)
  • Marco Rubio 3% [10%] (17%) {15%} [8%] (9%)
  • Someone else/Not sure 9% [4%] (6%) {8%} [5%] (11%)

Among Women

  • Jeb Bush 17% [15%] (12%) {11%} [8%] (12%)
  • Chris Christie 15% [16%] (11%) {10%} [16%] (13%)
  • Mike Huckabee 15% (18%) {17%} [21%] (22%)
  • Rand Paul 14% [14%] (16%) {5%} [5%] (8%)
  • Paul Ryan 9% [19%] (10%) {17%} [5%] (8%)
  • Ted Cruz 9% [7%]
  • Bobby Jindal 4% [0%] (5%)
  • Marco Rubio 3% [12%] (16%) {10%} [11%] (4%)
  • Scott Walker 1%
  • Someone else/Not sure 13% [10%] (8%) {9%} [10%] (10%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net} 

  • Paul Ryan 63% [68%] (63%) {83%} [49%] (44%) / 13% [12%] (16%) {13%} [14%] (8%) {+50%}
  • Mike Huckabee 63% (64%) {68%} [68%] (69%) / 19% (22%) {16%} [20%] (12%) {+44%}
  • Rand Paul 59% [60%] (55%) {48%} [49%] (54%) / 15% [15%] (19%) {28%} [29%] (15%) {+44%}
  • Sarah Palin 61% {60%} [60%] (70%) / 21% {26%} [26%] (17%) {+40%}
  • Jeb Bush 50% [58%] (55%) {60%} [53%] (62%) / 17% [17%] (17%) {11%} [19%] (9%) {+33%}
  • Rick Perry 45% (43%) / 17% (28%) {+28%}
  • Marco Rubio 42% [54%] (54%) {59%} [57%] (46%) / 14% [14%] (13%) {11%} [13%] (7%) {+28%}
  • Scott Walker 39% / 12% {+27%}
  • Ted Cruz 40% [27%] / 14% [12%] {+26%}
  • Bobby Jindal 36% [42%] (43%) / 10% [14%] (11%) {+26%}
  • Rick Santorum 44% [57%] {64%} [65%] (68%) / 21% [15%] {18%} [22%] (17%) {+23%}
  • Chris Christie 38% [45%] (36%) {55%} [57%] (50%) / 35% [27%] (33%) {21%} [17%] (16%) {+3%}
  • John Kasich 11% / 13% {-2%}
  • Donald Trump 23% / 44% {-21%}

Survey of 283 Republican voters was conducted February 20-23, 2014. The margin of error is +/- 5.8 percentage points.  Political ideology:39% [33%] (31%) {39%} [40%] (35%) Somewhat conservative; 33% [45%] (43%) {36%} [37%] (46%) Very conservative; 21% [16%](21%) {19%} [16%] (14%) Moderate; 5% [5%] (5%) {3%} [6%] (3%) Somewhat liberal; 2% [1%] (1%) {3%} [1%] (2%) Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted July 5-7, 2013 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 1-3, 2013 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted November 3-4, 2012 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 12-15, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted May 3-6, 2012 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 11:13 am. Filed under 2016, Iowa Caucuses, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

February 24, 2014

Poll Watch: PPP (D) Kansas 2016 Republican Primary Survey

PPP (D) Kansas 2016 GOP Primary Poll

  • Mike Huckabee 20%
  • Chris Christie 13%
  • Jeb Bush 13%
  • Ted Cruz 12%
  • Rand Paul 11%
  • Paul Ryan 7%
  • Marco Rubio 5%
  • Scott Walker 4%
  • Bobby Jindal 2%
  • Someone else/Not sure 13%

Among Men

  • Mike Huckabee 21%
  • Chris Christie 15%
  • Jeb Bush 13%
  • Ted Cruz 13%
  • Rand Paul 12%
  • Paul Ryan 5%
  • Scott Walker 5%
  • Marco Rubio 4%
  • Bobby Jindal 2%
  • Someone else/Not sure 10%

Among Women

  • Mike Huckabee 19%
  • Jeb Bush 13%
  • Chris Christie 12%
  • Paul Ryan 10%
  • Ted Cruz 10%
  • Rand Paul 9%
  • Marco Rubio 7%
  • Scott Walker 2%
  • Bobby Jindal 2%
  • Someone else/Not sure 17%

Survey of 375 Republican primary voters was conducted February 18-20, 2014. The margin of error is +/- 5.1 percentage points. Political ideology: 32% Very conservative; 32% Somewhat conservative; 29%Moderate; 5% Somewhat liberal; 2% Very liberal.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 2:13 pm. Filed under 2016, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

February 18, 2014

Poll Watch: PPP (D) Louisiana 2016 Republican Primary Survey

  • Mike Huckabee 20% (18%)  
  • Bobby Jindal 13% [10%] (14%)
  • Ted Cruz 12% [8%]
  • Rand Paul 10% [18%] (8%)
  • Jeb Bush 9% [17%] (9%)
  • Chris Christie 8% [10%] (11%)
  • Paul Ryan 8% [11%] (7%)
  • Marco Rubio 7% [8%] (21%)
  • Scott Walker 2%
  • Someone else/Not sure 12% [13%] (8%)

Among Men

  • Mike Huckabee 20% (18%)
  • Ted Cruz 16% [10%]
  • Chris Christie 11% [10%] (13%)
  • Bobby Jindal 10% [9%] (8%)
  • Rand Paul 10% [22%] (9%)
  • Paul Ryan 9% [14%] (7%)
  • Jeb Bush 8% [15%] (9%)
  • Marco Rubio 8% [8%] (24%)
  • Scott Walker 2%
  • Someone else/Not sure 7% [8%] (8%)
Among Women 

  • Mike Huckabee 20% (18%)
  • Bobby Jindal 17% [12%] (21%)
  • Jeb Bush 10% [18%] (9%)
  • Rand Paul 10% [14%] (7%)
  • Ted Cruz 8% [6%]
  • Paul Ryan 6% [9%] (7%)
  • Marco Rubio 6% [7%] (18%)
  • Chris Christie 4% [11%] (9%)
  • Scott Walker 2%
  • Someone else/Not sure 18% [19%] (8%)

Survey of 309 Republican primary voters was conducted February 6-9, 2014.  The margin of error is +/- 5.6 percentage points. Political ideology: 37% [44%] Very conservative; 35% [38%] Somewhat conservative; 22% [11%] Moderate; 3% [5%] Somewhat liberal; 2% [3%] Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted August 16-19, 2013 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 8-12, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 10:10 am. Filed under 2016, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

February 13, 2014

Poll Watch: PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 Republican Primary Survey

PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 GOP Primary Poll

  • Mike Huckabee 20% (15%)
  • Jeb Bush 15% (14%) {15%} [16%] (9%)
  • Rand Paul 14% (14%) {13%} [12%] (6%)
  • Chris Christie 11% (17%) {19%} [20%] (10%)
  • Paul Ryan 8% (11%) {7%} [7%] (12%)
  • Ted Cruz 8% (11%) {12%} [12%]
  • Marco Rubio 7% (9%) {10%} [10%] (21%)
  • Scott Walker 4% (3%) {5%} [1%]
  • Bobby Jindal 3% (5%) {3%} [6%]
  • Someone else/Not sure 9% (13%) {11%} [13%] (8%)

Among Men

  • Rand Paul 19% (14%) {15%} [16%] (9%)
  • Jeb Bush 18% (14%) {14%} [14%] (11%)
  • Mike Huckabee 15% (14%)
  • Chris Christie 14% (18%) {18%} [19%] (10%)
  • Ted Cruz 7% (14%) {15%} [16%]
  • Marco Rubio 7% (7%) {10%} [9%] (22%)
  • Scott Walker 6% (4%) {6%} [1%]
  • Paul Ryan 5% (10%) {5%} [6%] (12%)
  • Bobby Jindal 3% (6%) {3%} [5%]
  • Someone else/Not sure 6% (9%) {7%} [10%] (7%)

Among Women

  • Mike Huckabee 25% (16%)
  • Jeb Bush 13% (13%) {16%} [18%] (8%)
  • Paul Ryan 12% (11%) {8%} [9%] (12%)
  • Rand Paul 9% (14%) {11%} [8%] (4%)
  • Ted Cruz 9% (9%) {10%} [9%]
  • Chris Christie 7% (17%) {19%} [20%] (10%)
  • Marco Rubio 7% (11%) {10%} [10%] (19%)
  • Bobby Jindal 3% (4%) {3%} [7%]
  • Scott Walker 2% (1%) {4%} [0%]
  • Someone else/Not sure 13% (17%) {15%} [17%] (10%)

Survey of 305 Republican primary voters was conducted February 6-9, 2014. The margin of error is +/- 5.6 percentage points. Political ideology: 35% (38%) {37%} [36%] (44%) Very conservative; 33% (40%) {39%} [36%] (35%) Somewhat conservative; 22% (16%) {16%}[21%] (13%) Moderate; 7% (4%) {7%} [4%] (6%) Somewhat liberal; 3% (2%) {1%} [3%] (1%) Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted January 9-12, 2014 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 5-8, 2013 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 8-11, 2013 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 6-9, 2012 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 4:00 am. Filed under 2016, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

February 12, 2014

Poll Watch: McClatchy-Marist 2016 Republican Nomination Survey

McClatchy-Marist 2016 GOP Nomination Poll 

  • Chris Christie 13% {16%} [18%] (15%)
  • Mike Huckabee 13%
  • Marco Rubio 12% {7%} [7%] (12%)
  • Paul Ryan 9% {12%} [11%] (13%)
  • Rand Paul 9% {9%} [12%] (9%)
  • Jeb Bush 8% {8%} [10%] (10%)
  • Sarah Palin 8%
  • Scott Walker 7% {4%} [4%] (2%)

Survey of registered Republicans and GOP-leaning Independents was conducted February 4-9, 2014Results from the poll conducted January 12-14, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 3-5, 2013 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 15-18, 2013 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Without Christie or Palin in the race, Huckabee and Rubio tie at the top with 15 percent.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 9:59 am. Filed under 2016, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

February 3, 2014

Poll Watch: CNN/ORC 2016 Republican Nomination Survey

CNN/ORC 2016 GOP Nomination Poll 

  • Mike Huckabee 14%
  • Rand Paul 13% [13%] (13%)
  • Chris Christie 10% [24%] (17%)
  • Jeb Bush 10% [6%] (10%)
  • Paul Ryan 9% [11%] (16%)
  • Marco Rubio 9% [9%] (9%)
  • Rick Perry 8% [7%] (6%)
  • Ted Cruz 8% [10%] (7%)
  • Rick Santorum 4% [6%] (5%)

Survey of Republicans and GOP-leaning Independents was conducted January 31 – February 2, 2014.  The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 18-20, 2013 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 6-8, 2013are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 6:18 pm. Filed under 2016, Mike Huckabee, Poll Watch

January 31, 2014

State of the 2016 Presidential Field

With President’s Obama’s popularity waning, and with his promise of a transformational presidency long ago thwarted by his own inability to turn around the nation’s economy or enact a bold legislative agenda, eyes are beginning to turn towards potential presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle as Americans commence the search for a leader to move the nation forward and renew its sense of optimism.

On the Democratic side, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leads her fellow Democrats by several laps, with even sitting Vice President Joe Biden polling well behind the seeming Hillary juggernaut. Given Mrs. Clinton’s popularity due to memories of her husband’s “Golden Age” economy, the contest for the Democratic nomination in 2016 may very well become a coronation. And though she currently leads all potential Republican presidential candidates in early polls of the general election, the aging Secretary of State is now tied not only to her popular husband’s Administration, but to the unpopular Obama Administration. It remains to be seen whether Mrs. Clinton can appeal to the American center the way her husband did, or the way she briefly did during her populist 2008 presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, the Republican field appears to be full of moving parts. In the wake of his re-election last year to the New Jersey governorship, Gov. Chris Christie appeared to be the frontrunner for 2016 due to his panache and charisma and his independent streak, all of which would theoretically allow the governor to sell the GOP message to the sorts of swing voters that Republicans will need in order to snag the White House in 2016. But “Bridge-gate” has hit Christie where it hurts, and with questions raised about the governor’s ethics in its wake, public support for Christie, both in New Jersey and nationally, is waning.

With Christie’s fall leaving an opening for another Republican candidate who could potentially garner non-traditional Republican voters, buzz began to circulate that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was considering yet another presidential run. Gov. Huckabee, during his races in Arkansas, had previously demonstrated an ability to perform disproportionately well for a Republican among usually solidly Democratic African-American voters. Despite strong poll numbers, Huckabee’s recent foray back into the spotlight has already begun to open old wounds, as his use of the term “libido” in relation to women has given Democrats an opportunity to try and reignite the 2012 “War on Women” that damaged the prospects of Gov. Romney. It is possible that Gov. Huckabee, for generational reasons, is ill-equipped to run a presidential campaign in a world where every word that comes out of a politician’s mouth is now fair game for a “hashtag” on Twitter.

Meanwhile, the candidates of the Republican base, such as Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul, continue to perform strongly among Republican voters, while faring poorly in a general election matchup against Hillary Clinton. Sen. Paul’s attempt to become a more mainstream carrier of his father’s message has earned him a place in the Senate and a following among Republicans, but has not given him the kind of national following needed to win the White House at this juncture. Sen. Paul’s potential to perform solidly in both Iowa and New Hampshire during the Republican primaries will make him a force to be reckoned with nonetheless. At the same time, Sen. Cruz is attempting to become the Tea Party candidate for the 2016 cycle, a position that will make for a strong primary campaign but that might not translate well to success in the general election.

Still other prominent candidates are attempting to thread the needle and become a candidate who can garner broad support while still being rooted in the traditional Republican base. Rep. Paul Ryan, currently doing well in polls of Republican primary voters, is one such candidate. While his prospects were dampened by a less than magnetic performance during his stint as vice presidential nominee in 2012, Ryan remains a young, smart, articulate candidate who has positions acceptable to the base and who has demonstrated an ability to win crossover voters in Wisconsin. Still, whether Ryan has the charisma necessary to go the distance nationally remains to be seen. Sen. Marco Rubio once sought to fill the same position, but his star seems to have faded recently, as his positions on immigration reform put him at odds with the GOP base without doing him much good in the political center.

As such, the GOP field remains wide open for other entrants hoping to both garner the nomination and become the nation’s 45th president. One name beginning to surface is that of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. A popular executive in the state of Florida, Gov. Bush positioned himself during the last presidential cycle as a reasonable Republican who understands that the concerns of most voters are not necessarily on the same page as the “playbooks” of today’s Beltway political consultants. At least one poll has shown Gov. Bush holding Mrs. Clinton under 50% in a general election matchup in the all important state of Florida, and another poll shows only a two point gap between the two nationally. Moreover, Gov. Bush leads, or ties for the lead, in two recent polls of the Republican field, and has the potential to become the “establishment candidate” should he enter the race, a powerful position in a Republican presidential primary.

While many observers question the wisdom of another candidate named Bush leading the GOP ticket, the dynastic issues that would normally arise from a Bush nomination would be cancelled out by the nomination of Hillary Clinton to head the Democratic ticket. And while Mr. Bush would turn 63 in 2016, Mrs. Clinton will turn 69 that same year, meaning that both candidates will be Baby Boomers and neither will have a clear claim to Generations X or Y. And while Mr. Bush does not exude charisma, he does exude competence and statesman-like qualities, similar to Mrs. Clinton, and comes across as eminently reasonable for voters looking for a sober alternative to continued Democratic rule.

At this early juncture, though, anything could still happen. If a young, interesting candidate with potentially broad-based appeal, such as Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, were to jump into the race, the dynamics of the race could change entirely. As would those dynamics change if Mrs. Clinton decided not to run. The reality is that the landscape of 2016, while coming into focus, is anything but certain.

December 13, 2013

It Begins…

This appears to have surpassed the “testing the waters” phase into a nascent campaign roll out:

Add another name to the list of potential GOP presidential contenders for 2016. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — the winner of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, who took a pass on the 2012 presidential race — says he might be willing to give it another try.

In an interview Thursday night, Huckabee said he is receiving encouragement to run “from places where I never got it before.”
That includes “business, people some would maybe call the establishment,” he added. Both groups were adversaries in his 2008 bid, which caught fire in Iowa, but sputtered in later contests where he lacked money and organization.

Huckabee was in Little Rock to give a keynote address to a dinner sponsored by the American Renewal Project, which is led by Christian activist David Lane and encourages evangelical pastors to become more involved in political action.

About 600 pastors and their spouses attended the event. Afterward, Huckabee held a private meeting with a group that had come from Iowa and South Carolina, both states where there are early presidential contests.

Although Huckabee enjoys strong support among conservative Christians, he sounded a much broader message.
What is driving him, he said, is “a sense in which I really believe the key to a Republican victory is an ability to communicate a message that speaks across a broader spectrum. One of our failures is the ability to speak to African-Americans, to speak to Hispanics, to speak to working class people — more than just speaking to the board room, speaking to the people who go in and clean up after the meeting.”

Full story here.

by @ 11:37 am. Filed under 2016, Mike Huckabee

October 16, 2013

Mike Huckabee Considering 2016 Presidential Run

In an interview with CBN’s David Brody, Gov. Mike Huckabee states that he has already spoken with advisors regarding a 2016 presidential run:


by @ 11:39 am. Filed under 2016, Mike Huckabee

September 27, 2013

The Myth Of The Government Shut-Down

The government of the United States is not going to be shut down this week. Or next week. Even if the continuing budget resolution is not passed by both the U.S. house and senate, and signed by the president, the government will not be shut down.

A government “shut-down” has become a term of political myth, partisan melodrama, and rhetorical comedy.

First, the vital functions of the government are not ever shut down. Second, the current impasse is an incessant replay of a wearying political soap opera in which one party attempts to score points in public opinion against the other party. (Usually these points are won by the party occupying the White House because of any president’s media advantage. This also heavily favors Democrats since the Old Media overwhelmingly favors the liberal party.) Third, most of those who endure any consequences are government employees, most of whom vote for Democrats. Presidents can also easily grandstand by closing down low-cost items such as White House tours (which are made to seem much more important than they are).

The last “shut-down” confrontation produced the celebrated “sequesters” which were advertised in advance by the Obama administration as imminent disasters. In fact, the sequesters have turned out to be rather effective, if uneven, as a limit on public spending and only a minor inconvenience. Sequestering is not a viable permanent solution, but as a short-term strategy, it has turned out rather well.

Obamacare is in deep trouble. The administration has already postponed major parts of the legislation, and might have to postpone more. The various components of the labyrinthine so-called healthcare reform are mostly not ready to be implemented. The Democratic legislation itself is extraordinarily unpopular, and in 2010 led to an electoral disaster in that year’s midterm elections. It threatens to result in the same in 2014. Various states have already begun to set up Obamacare exchanges, and some are claiming they will work, but the numbers so far do not add up.

Senator Ted Cruz conducted a 21-hour pseudo-filibuster against funding Obamacare, but it was not meant to be anything more than a publicity monologue for the Texas senator, aimed at the conservative political base. Immediately after concluding his effort, Mr. Cruz voted along with the entire senate (100-0) to begin debate on the continuing resolution — a debate that inevitably led to its passage.

The U.S. house has voted one more time to defund Obamacare, with Republicans again fulfilling their promise to vote against the unpopular legislation. However, without control of the U.S. senate and the White House, any action of theirs is merely symbolic, and cannot accomplish anything except public relations.

Some of the most thoughtful conservatives who strongly oppose Obamacare have suggested that Republicans in Congress should, in effect, get out of the way, and let the long-winded, contradictory and unsustainable legislation begin to take effect. As totally the political property of the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, these conservatives say, let them take the inevitable backlash for its construction and enactment.Former Republican Governor Mike Huckabee, now a conservative TV commentator/host, has made this case particularly well.

Like so many political issues today, realities are clouded by emotional and intimidating rhetoric. “Governmentshut-down” is one of the most blatant examples of this.

The public should ignore these petty games, and demand that both parties work out settlements that will actually improve healthcare delivery, boost the economy by helping entrepreneurship, lower unemployment and stimulate positively the public markets.

———————————————————————————-
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

by @ 12:06 pm. Filed under 2013, Campaign Issues, Mike Huckabee, Spending, Ted Cruz

June 30, 2013

The Specularazzi Go Hyper-Forward To 2016

We remain only in the first year of the second term of Barack Obama’s presidency, and the media specularazzi are already churning in predictions and conclusions. It seems, in recent cycles, it always to go this way with breathless prognostications, meaningless polls, and reports of instant political “nosedives”of frontrunners and other presidential hopefuls.

On the Democratic side, the race has been declared “over” by virtually all the specularazzi, i.e., that Hillary Clinton already has the nomination in her handbag, and thus no more need be said. The fact that the identical conclusion was reached by consensus in 2006, and did not come to pass, seems to be of no import to the specularazzi. Of course, Mrs. Clinton has “total” name recognition, and it has been declared that it’s “her turn”by her old supporters. She will, of course, be nearly 70 years old in 2016, her record as secretary of state now judged to be “controversial” and uneven at best. She is a poor public speaker, and has no distinction as an administrator. Nevertheless, she is “inevitable.” Fast-forwarding is so much fun, is it not?

By the way, I wonder if Andrew Cuomo, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Cory Booker, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, Ron Wyden and other talented younger Democrats are so willing to throw in the towel this far in advance. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

On the Republican side, there is more debate. Early favorite Senator Marco Rubio has gambled big-time on immigration reform legislation that is very unpopular with many in the GOP grass roots. Likewise, high profile New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been declared to have “crossed the line” with his handling of a U.S. senate vacancy and his “moderate” views. The new darling on the right is first-term Texas Senator Ted Cruz, an outspoken and smart conservative who seems to be filling a temporary political void. Concurrent with the seeming decline of Mr. Rubio, there has been a revival of the only man in recent U.S. history who has been disqualified for the presidency solely because of his surname, i.e., former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a man with genuine accomplishments, proven intelligence and, oh yes, all kinds of Hispanic credentials.

Of course, the Republicans also have a stable of old war horses, including Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, et al, but unlike 2008 and 2012, there are none who might legitimately claim that it’s ”their turn.”

As I see it, Governor Christie, Senator Cruz and former Governor Bush, albeit with differing points of view, are rather talented fellows, and should make the 2016 contest (when we finally get to it) rather interesting.

In 2005, by the way, hardly anyone had heard of the person who swept to election as president only three years later.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman.   All rights reserved.

February 7, 2013

Poll Alert: New PPP Iowa Poll Finds Rubio and Huckabee Tied in Iowa

by @ 2:49 pm. Filed under Iowa Caucuses, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee

August 23, 2012

OPINION: The End Of Mike Huckabee

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s endorsement of Rep. Todd Akin in the Missouri primary turned out to be a bad idea. Allowing Akin the use of his radio show as a platform to stay in the race was a worse idea. But today, Mike Huckabee’s latest idea might be the worst of his career, with the exception of his release of Maurice Clemmons from prison.

Today Huckabee, in the face of near universal conservative clamor for Akin to leave the Missouri Senate race, blasted out this email to his followers:

The Party’s leaders have for reasons that aren’t rational, left [Akin] behind on the political battlefield, wounded and bleeding, a casualty of his self-inflicted, but not intentional wound. In a Party that supposedly stands for life, it was tragic to see the carefully orchestrated and systematic attack on a fellow Republican. Not for a moral failure or corruption or a criminal act, but for a misstatement which he contritely and utterly repudiated. I was shocked by GOP leaders and elected officials who rushed so quickly to end the political life of a candidate over a mistaken comment in an interview. This was a serious mistake, but it was blown out of proportion not by the left, but by Akin’s own Republican Party. Is this what the party really thinks of principled pro-life advocates? Do we forgive and forget the verbal gaffes of Republicans who are “conveniently pro-life” for political advantage, but crucify one who truly believes that every life is sacred?

Who ordered this “Code Red” on Akin? There were talking point memos sent from the National Republican Senatorial Committee suggesting language to urge Akin to drop out. Political consultants were ordered to stay away from Akin or lose future business with GOP committees. Operatives were recruited to set up a network of pastors to call Akin to urge him to get out. Money has changed hands to push him off the plank. It is disgraceful. From the spotlights of political offices and media perches, it may appear that the demand for Akin’s head is universal in the party. I assure you it is not. There is a vast, but mostly quiet army of people who have an innate sense of fairness and don’t like to see a fellow political pilgrim bullied. If Todd Akin loses the Senate seat, I will not blame Todd Akin. He made his mistake, but was man enough to admit it and apologize. I’m waiting for the apology from whoever the genius was on the high pedestals of our party who thought it wise to not only shoot our wounded, but run over him with tanks and trucks and then feed his body to the liberal wolves. It wasn’t just Todd Akin that was treated with contempt by the thinly veiled attack on Todd Akin. It was all the people who have faithfully knocked doors, made calls, and made sacrificial contributions to elect Republicans because we thought we were welcome in the party. Todd Akin owned his mistake. Who will step up and admit the effort being made to discredit Akin and apologize for the sleazy way it’s been handled?

I’ve always believed and still do, that if you don’t honor your friendships, you don’t honor yourself. And I consider Todd a friend. So I will join Todd as often as I can, in his fight for our Party’s pro-life policies, traditional marriage and our efforts to rein in the massive expansion of government under President Obama. Todd is being systematically scourged for one thing he said. Is that more important than what Claire McCaskill has DONE over her 6 years in the Senate? If you’d like to join the fight, and help defeat a Democrat Senator standing in the way of a conservative majority, I encourage you to join me. The party has decided it won’t help. In fact, it has decided that it will try to cut off the supply lines to Akin to pressure him to exit and let the party bosses overturn the voters of Missouri and pick their own candidate. If this can happen to Todd Akin, who is next?

I’ve heard the talk of new deadlines and the nonsense about the Republican Party running a 3rd party candidate, but I am no longer listening to that noise. The idea that our Party would continue to play games behind the scenes and feed the Democrats make-believe narrative of the GOP’s fictional war on women is equally ridiculous. Now is the time to focus on electing a conservative Senate Majority. And if the NRSC and RNC and the money-rich PACS won’t help Todd Akin get us to the majority, then we’ll do it without them. And his seat will not have been sold to the highest bidder, but obtained by the highest principles.

This should be the last straw for a man whose poor judgement, religious bigotry, and pettiness have been the cornerstone of his political life. I call on Gov. Mitt Romney to pull Mike Huckabee from the Republican National Convention and I call on Roger Ailes to end his show on Fox News. No one this arrogant, this selfish, this self righteous  has any place on our convention stage or on a legitimate news network. Let him spend his time groveling for donations from the tiny handful of religious extremists who still think Todd Akin will be a U.S. Senator.  We cannot afford, nor should we allow, someone this narcissistic to occupy the same stage as our nominee.  This is about Romney/Ryan and the future of our country, not about Mike Huckabee’s questionable judgement or massive ego.

I can’t say I’m surprised by Gov. Huckabee’s actions. I’ve known for years just how phony and dishonest he was as a governor and as a candidate. I was always the first to knock down the ridiculous suggestion that Mitt Romney should add Huckabee to the ticket, burdening himself with his distorted ideology.

Now, all my fears of Huckabee have been proven right. His insanity has cost us a Missouri Senate seat, and with it possibly a Senate majority. With that he has cost us the very reforms our nation needs, sabotaging a Romney presidency before it even gets off the ground. And maybe that was his intention all along; revenge against his former foe. Revenge against the man who has beaten him to the cusp of the presidency. Revenge on a man whose faith he cannot stomach. Maybe that was his goal all along.

Todd Akin made a serious gaffe, a gaffe that should have forced the end of his candidacy. But it’s Mike Huckabee who has revealed the most about his character, it’s Mike Huckabee who has truly damaged this party, and it is Mike Huckabee who should see his career end because of this debacle.

by @ 3:05 pm. Filed under 2012 Misc., Mike Huckabee

May 9, 2012

Huckabee on the Veep Shortlist?

According to Robert Costa over at NRO, Gov. Mike Huckabee is being considered for the #2 spot by Team Romney:

The conventional wisdom about Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential short list, according to a handful of Romney insiders, may be wrong. Instead of picking a straitlaced Midwestern senator such as Ohio’s Rob Portman, or an outspoken northeastern Republican governor such as Chris Christie, there is a chance Romney will tap an evangelical from the South.

And the name on the lips of Romney friends and supporters isn’t a rising southern senator or a current Dixie governor. He has been out of office for five years, resides on a beach in the Florida panhandle, and hosts a television show.

In other words, Mike Huckabee, the bass-guitar-playing former governor.

Yes, according to several sources close to the Romney campaign, who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the vice-presidential search, the 56-year-old Arkansan may be included in the veep mix.

With Huckabee being 1B to Marco Rubio’s 1A for me, I am keeping my fingers crossed that there is some truth to this report.

For all of the reasons why a Romney/Huckabee pairing makes sense, be sure to read all of Costa’s article here.

by @ 3:03 pm. Filed under Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Veep Watch

April 19, 2012

Veep Poll: The Third Round

The second round of Veep Polling has passed (results here) and we’re moving on to the third round.

If John Thune was selected as Romney’s VP, how content would you be on a scale from 1 to 10 (1=You’d stay home, 10=You’d canvas the country for Romney)?

If Bobby Jindal was selected as Romney’s VP, how content would you be on a scale from 1 to 10 (1=You’d stay home, 10=You’d canvas the country for Romney)?

If Mike Huckabee was selected as Romney’s VP, how content would you be on a scale from 1 to 10 (1=You’d stay home, 10=You’d canvas the country for Romney)?

If Mitch Daniels was selected as Romney’s VP, how content would you be on a scale from 1 to 10 (1=You’d stay home, 10=You’d canvas the country for Romney)?

Example (mine):

John Thune- 5

Bobby Jindal- 10

Mike Huckabee- 6

Mitch Daniels- 8

Note:  I realize that some of you may not be overly familiar with some of these candidates, but please try to provide a response for each, or I will not be able to compile the data.  Lack of familiarity (which would likely lead to average numbers) is a response in of itself.

-Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

by @ 12:00 pm. Filed under Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Veep Watch

April 13, 2012

How Romney Won the GOP Nomination

Memories and Lessons of a Just-Completed Campaign

Now that the primary season has all but officially ended (mercifully and at last), it is time for political analysts to look back at the yearlong trek that got us Nominee Romney and see what conclusions we can draw from this prolonged fight. There are several things that led to Romney’s success this time around:

The Job Interview
At first glance, it may seem the most cogent lesson is the simplest one: the Republicans once again nominated their next-in-line candidate. Just as John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford before him, Romney was widely perceived as “earning his turn,” so to speak. But there is something going on at a deeper level here – why (with the notable exception of George W. Bush) does the modern GOP seem to hand their nomination to the next-in-line? After all, this is a truism, a force, strong enough to revive John McCain from political death a thousand times over in 2008. And it was enough to protect Romney from one of the most anti-establishment, angry conservative electorates in recent memory. How?

It has been said that the Republicans treat their primaries much like a job interview, while Democrats treat theirs like a dating game – a comparative analogy that has some heft behind it to be sure. Democrats get excited about insurgent candidates that send thrills up their legs, whereas Republicans like to sit back and determine whether our candidates have the experience necessary for the job. Looking at the 2008 primaries in an parallel universe, then, we wouldn’t have been surprised to see a Mike Huckabee vs. Hillary Clinton general election matchup – where Huckabee had won the Democratic primary and Hillary the Republican one.

Insurgent candidates are just not built to survive modern Republican primaries. And so Romney perhaps had the huge advantage in this way from the outset: with no Huckabee and no Palin in the mix, he was the only “serious” candidate applying for this job. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum were never going to pass the job interview process. Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry both had a chance based on the resumes they had submitted, but as soon as they were called in for a face to face interview they were both summarily dismissed from contention. And so, after inspecting each of the job applicants in turn, ultimately the Republican Party ended up calling the candidate that looked the most attractive at the beginning of the process and saying, “You’re hired.” It’s a familiar process that makes sense for the “party of business” to follow.

Continue reading for Cycling Seppuku, I Can be Your Friend, Where in the World is Romney Sandiego, and “Establishment” Support…
(more…)

April 9, 2012

Huckabee Books Romney For His First Show

Politico reports:

DALLAS, April 9, 2012 – Cumulus Media Networks, with more than 4,000 affiliate radio stations reaching 121 million listeners, announces that former Governor Mike Huckabee’s highly anticipated “The Mike Huckabee Show” debuts today on more than 180 stations nationwide. The show airs live from noon to 3 pm ET, offering radio listeners a new voice in the conservative political talk landscape. The first show will feature Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

(h/t OgrePete)

by @ 9:05 am. Filed under Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney

April 7, 2012

Huckabee versus Limbaugh — It’s On

Politco reports:

Rush Limbaugh, the longstanding undisputed king of conservative talk radio who’s been dogged by controversy recently, is about to face some more heat. Not from the left, but this time from the right.

On Monday, former Arkansas governor and one-time Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee will launch a three-hour radio program on almost 200 stations across the country, going voice-to-voice with Limbaugh in the noon-to-3 p.m. time slot, Monday through Friday.

Cumulus Media, which owns and operates the new program, is already pitching Huckabee to listeners and advertisers as the “safe alternative” to a man who has recently found himself under weeks of intense fire – not for the first time – and who some believe could be vulnerable to a challenge from someone offering a kinder, gentler conservative voice.

“Our tagline is, ‘More conversation, less confrontation’,” Huckabee told POLITICO. “I’m going to treat every guest with respect and civility. Nobody is going to come on and get into a shouting match with me. That’s just not my style.”

Huckabee, who has never met Limbaugh, does indeed join a long list of conservative voices who have gone up against Limbaugh in the noon time slot, competing for pull among the base of the Republican party. The most well-known of those now-vanished competitors is Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly, who hosted the nationally syndicated show, “The Radio Factor,” for seven years and became the second-most listened-to talk radio host on the airwaves. In 2009, O’Reilly was replaced by former Sen. Fred Thompson, who — like Huckabee — was trumpeted as an alternative to Limbaugh, but was never able to get traction. He ended the show last year.

I haven’t listened to Rush on purpose in years. I suspect it’s a matter of changing taste. I used to enjoy his style of bombastic shtick quite a bit. Now I prefer much more measured, thoughtful, careful analysis.

I guess I’m getting old.

 

by @ 3:13 pm. Filed under Mike Huckabee

April 5, 2012

Ron Paul Advisor: Romney Most Likely to Select Mike Huckabee for Veep

Doug Wead states the case for Mike Huckabee in his Op-Ed for Conservative Actions Alerts:

Romney, if he has any chance of winning at all, will pick former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee, as his running mate. Because Huckabee is a born again Christian who is vetted. Two very big factors. Now if Huckabee were only a woman and an African American there wouldn’t be any doubt about it. But the Romney campaign has been pretty stunning in its missteps. So there is no guarantee that it will pick Huckabee. People do stupid things. Especially Romney. And then, gas prices may climb to $8 a gallon and then he can pick whomever he wants.

Consider, 48% of the nation claims to be born again Christians. If even a fraction of them sit at home, the South, bulging with African American voters for Obama, will tilt to the Democrats. Huckabee can help Romney carry the South. And all of the other VP candidates will have surprises in the closet that will come out. Huckabee too had some of those surprises but they are old news. And they are manageable.

The first rule of choosing a VP is do yourself no harm.

If Rubio and Martinez are ruled out, I would love to see Gov. Huckabee get the nod.

Full Op-Ed here.

by @ 7:55 pm. Filed under Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Veep Watch

March 13, 2012

Of Miracles and Mathematics

“I didn’t major in math. I majored in miracles, and I still believe in them, too.”

          -Mike Huckabee, 2/9/08, upon learning that it would be mathematically impossible for him to win the GOP nomination

“This isn’t about math… This isn’t a mathematical formula. This race has a tremendous amount of dynamics.”

          -Rick Santorum, 3/11/12, when asked about the arguments that he cannot mathematically win the GOP nomination

Sometimes facing reality hurts.

by @ 11:45 am. Filed under Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum

February 29, 2012

Thoughts on Yesterday’s Contests

I spent all day yesterday traveling so I missed most of the excitement. When I finally got home and could check the news, Mitt Romney had already won both contests. So, what does it mean in the grand scheme of things?

Well, Mitt was supposed to win Arizona handily, and he did. The other candidates only put in token efforts in the state. Michigan was the big story.

Both Mitt and Rick Santorum pulled out all the stops in Michigan. It was Mitt’s birth state. It is a blue-collar Midwestern state where Santorum is supposed to be strong. It was a battle royal.

A little more than two weeks ago, Mitt led Rick 33 – 14% in the Michigan RCP poll average. Three days later after Santorum’s three state win, the polling stood at Santorum 39, Romney 29%. Rick went from a 19 percentage point deficit to a 10 percentage point lead. That is a swing of nearly 30 percentage points in a mere three days. Mitt was in serious trouble.

Nationally, Santorum passed Romney on the Gallup daily tracking poll on his way to a 36% peak reached on the 18th of February. Romney dropped to a low of 26% reached a day later on the 19th.  All momentum had shifted to Santorum.

ABRs began confidently predicting a Michigan loss for Romney. “He’s done. Stick a fork in him”, were some of the comments seen around the web. They spoke too soon. They forgot that Santorum was the last Flavor-of-the-Month that had never really been vetted before.

It didn’t last for long. Only three days after Santorum passed Romney in the Gallup daily tracking poll, he reached his peak of 36%. He hung there for three days and began to slide. Romney reached his low point four days after losing the lead, hung there for two days, and began to rise. Momentum was shifting back to Romney. It looked for all the world like another ABR bubble burst.

Santorum could see his numbers in Michigan and nationally slipping and knew that if he lost the two big states of Michigan and Arizona, his campaign would be dealt a serious blow. So Rick went for broke in Michigan. But there is going for broke, and there is panicking. Rick panicked.

First he turned to personal nasty attacks against Mitt Romney. He started to throw everything at Mitt, including out and out lies.  This was the exact same mistake that Newt Gingrich made in Florida and the lead up to Nevada. That, more than anything else, is what drove Newt’s numbers down into the low teens where Ron Paul is now threatening to pass him and take third place.

When that tactic failed to head off his slide, Rick tried one last desperate act; he sent out a robo-call to Democrats calling upon them to come to the polls and vote against Mitt. While that seemed to work as far as it went, it also helped to swing the undecided Republican voters against him. They broke heavily for Romney. That pretty much balanced out everything Santorum gained with that dangerous tactic.

There is only one excuse for desperate measures, and that is if you win. Rick Santorum did not win. He lost. In a state where he lead the polls by double digits just two weeks before, he lost. In a died-in-the-wool rust-belt state full of evangelicals, he lost. If desperate measures do not get you the victory, then you are invariably in a worst position than you were before. Which is the position that Santorum finds himself in this morning.

(more…)

by @ 10:43 am. Filed under Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul

February 25, 2012

A Libertarian Republican’s Thoughts on Romney-Paul 2012

Since it became increasingly clear, following my candidate (and employer) Gary Johnson’s decision to drop out and run third party, and my second choice Ron Paul’s failure to gain traction after his very-respectable-but-just-not-energizing-enough finishes in the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, that a libertarian would not be representing the Republican Party in the general election, my sense of disappointment, frustration, and burn-out has compelled me to take something of a slight break from politics for a month or two. (I’m sure you were all enormously grieved by my absence.) A lot of libertarians in the GOP have been, and are currently, going through this phase right now. One thing that may be snapping a lot of us out of our funk, however, is the chilling surge in popularity of Rick Santorum–quite possibly one of the most overtly anti-libertarian candidates ever to come within reach of the GOP presidential nomination.
(more…)

February 8, 2012

What Just Happened, and What Does It All Mean?

Like many of you, I was a bit….. stunned….. by the results last night. Caucuses are notoriously difficult to poll, and so I took polls showing Rick leading in Minnesota with a grain of salt. Nobody thought Mitt could lose Colorado if he tried. And then……

Holy moley.

So here’s what happened, as far as the numbers are concerned. Mitt lost 46% of his raw vote total in Colorado- compared to 2008- while overall turnout was down 7%. Mitt lost 63% of his Missouri voters, while overall turnout there was down 57%. And in Minnesota, Mitt shed an eye-popping 69% of his 2008 supporters, while overall turnout was down 24% (this is with 95% reporting in Minnesota, so both % will shrink a bit there). I suspect Team Romney feels a bit like road kill this morning, wondering what the hell just happened. Where did all of their supporters from 2008 go? Why is Santorum, a guy with no money, organization, or charisma, suddenly the white knight?

I don’t pretend to have all (or any) of the answers, but I’ll throw a few random thoughts out there, and a few more questions to ponder.

  • I think it’s safe to say that Mitt’s much vaunted organization and GOTV efforts- like Newt’s intellect- have been highly overrated. It was conventional wisdom that his 2008 caucus wins were evidence of superior organization. Last night he took a thrashing at the hands of an organizational nonentity in states he won heavily in 2008. Either something else explains why Mitt was successful in 2008, or his organization just evaporated. I think it’s the former.
  • Santorum is widely considered to be filling the Huckabee SoCon niche, but without Huck’s natural charm. And yet, Santorum blew away Huck’s efforts in all three states last night. Huck wasn’t even competitive in Minnesota or Colorado, and he lost Missouri to McCain. Clearly, Santorum has expanded on Huck’s base. Who these people are, however, is not clear to me.
  • It’s not quite time for Team Romney to panic. He lost two caucuses and one beauty contest last night. That raises disturbing questions for his organization and messaging, for certain, but it doesn’t mean his nomination is yet in serious jeopardy. If Mitt wins convincingly in the Michigan primary, he’s back on track. If, however, he loses again at “home” and this time in a primary where he’s the favorite son, his campaign will be in crisis. Losing thinly attended caucuses that he won in 2008 is bad enough, but losing a large primary would be indicative of much deeper problems.
  • Momentum doesn’t mean squat this year. Rick had it coming out of Iowa, and was not competitive in New Hampshire. Mitt had it coming out of New Hampshire, and got killed in South Carolina. Newt had it leaving South Carolina, and got slaughtered in Florida. Mitt had it again after Florida, and got his butt handed to him by the guy running 3rd or 4th in the last few contests.

So where does Mitt go from here? Some last night advised he go “nuclear” on Santorum. That might work, and certainly worked on Newt in Florida (where 92% of Romney’s ads were negative). But all that negativity, I think, is part of why Mitt failed so spectacularly last night. He needs to find a way to win without running every last opponent he has through the shredder. People are going to have a hard time rallying around a campaign that is virtually all negative, all the time (at least in regard to what the average voters see, which are debates and TV ads). Others suggested he needs to sharpen his message, rework his stump speech, and present a clearer vision. I think this is better advice, and much healthier for his long term viability.

We should bear in mind that the low turnout races last night are the domain of the truly hard core voter. These folks tend to be higher information voters, and more ideological. Perhaps some Catholics were rallying around Santorum over the HHS mandate (I’m not aware of any exit polls this year). Perhaps many of these voters were reacting to the enormous cat fight between Newt and Mitt. Perhaps- as some have suggested- Mitt is simply not the “conservative alternative,” as he was in 2008, but rather now plays the part McCain did. These high information, highly motivated voters will be more diluted in primaries like Michigan. But Michigan is now Mitt’s firewall. If he loses Michigan to Santorum, not only has the air of inevitability left, but Santorum becomes the favorite for the nomination.

by @ 9:37 am. Filed under 2012 Misc., Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Site Meter

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main