Huckasurge and Obamaboom Continue!
Both Huckabee and Obama are now comfortably leading in Iowa and Huckabee’s in the lead in Florida.
The races for both the Democratic and Republican nomination are becoming increasingly interesting. The media had determined, beforehand, that the two frontrunners were Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani: the nomination was theirs to lose. Sadly for the MSM, however, the races turn out slightly differently. Clinton’s in big trouble in most of the early states, while Huckabee is rising in the polls nationwide, even in Giuliani-bulwark Florida.
A poll released by Rasmussen Reports yesterday shows that Huckabee’s now in the lead in Florida with 27%. The number two? Mitt Romney with 23%. Rudy Giuliani has fallen back from first to third place: only 19% of Florida Republicans say they’re going to vote for the former mayor of New York.
Now, Florida is an absolute must-win state for Giuliani. If he doesn’t win in Florida he has a major problem. Frankly, I think that all his lost for him if he doesn’t win the primary in this state. If he loses in Florida, he’ll lose all focus and his support nationwide, for February the fifth, will diminish. All Republican caucus goers will then focus on two people only: Governor Mitt Romney and Governor Mike Huckabee.
If Romney finishes in second place, shortly behind Huckabee, in Florida, he’ll still have a (good) chance at winning the nomination. It’ll truly be a two-men race then. On the other hand, the poll shows that Romney could actually also win in Florida. If he does, he’s instantly the favorite. It’s, frankly, difficult to imagine seeing Romney win Florida yet lose the nomination.
What this poll perhaps also shows is that it has already become a two-men race. The question is now becoming: will non-Evangelical voters support Romney en massse in an attempt to prevent Huckabee from winning the nomination? It’s quite likely that they will. If so, it’ll truly be one or two Republican voting blocs against one other. That’ll ensure that the race will be very exciting that’s one and two that the Christian Right won’t leave the GOP for a long time to come (after all, they still ‘count’ since they almost? won the party’s nomination). What’s more, although Romney is a Mormon, Evangelicals should be able to vote for him in the national elections since he too is socially quite conservative.
Who knows, perhaps we’ll even see a Romney / Huckabee ticket (or in the opposite order).
Meanwhile, Barack Obama continues to threaten Clinton in the early states such as Iowa. This poll indicates that they’re tied for first place (with 27%) but there are also polls that indicate that Obama is firmly in the lead. Having said that, the Democratic nomination is still Clinton’s to lose. Why? She’s still leading in Florida and in most of the states that have their primaries in February. Especially the big states such as Florida (January) and California and New York (February).
No matter what you think about the issues, I still think it’s refreshing that the people are deciding on their candidates instead of letting the media set the ‘narrative’.
On the GOP side, it seems to me that a problem for the paleoconservatives is that they don’t have one clear candidate to support. We’ve seen the battle between the Christian/social conservatives unfold, but we haven’t really seen coalescence around one fiscal conservative. Perhaps (as I think you suggest may happen, Michael), the fiscal conservatives will back Romney and thus all of the GOP factions will find enough to like in him. But it could be that the fiscal conservatives will push Thompson (or even McCain or Giuliani) back up in an attempt to really purge the Christian right from influence in the party.
I just saw too that Ed Rollins has joined the Huckabee campaign. Look for him to start pushing Huckabee toward a more fiscally conservative message (probably focusing on ideas of federalism, as they did in Reagan’s extremely successful campaign.) Perhaps that could throw a monkey wrench in things and get the fiscal conservatives on board with Huck.
I’m still torn on Huckabee personally. I like the guy and love his oratorical style- I think it’s just what we need. But if there was ever someone in need of good advisors, it’s him right now. He seems like someone who’s pretty bright but not as well informed as he should be. Good advisors could make a world of difference, to keep him filled in on the finer points of policy (esp foreign policy.) I don’t think America needs wonkish presidents, but we need presidents with wisdom who can choose good wonks to advise them.
I was under the impression that the Florida delegation was stripped and could not be part of the primary process for Democrats. It does surprise me that this article would refer to it as important for Hillary.
That it’s still Clinton’s to lose I don’t think is that clear. I’ve read in several places that whoever wins the first primary states gets an enormous boost in the rest of the polls. If Obama wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s likely that his national polling will become better fast. What is true is that Hillary can’t be counted out if she loses the first couple of states, while Obama will if he loses.
Anybody who counts on Florida to save them is a fool. Florida has always been a momentum state - it goes for whoever has the edge going into that primary, all the way back to 1976. Always. If Barack Obama wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (which he has a 50-50 chance of doing at this point), Hillary is finished.
FIRST! I’M AN EDUCATED BLACK VOTER AND WILL NEVER SUPPORT A OPRAHBAMA! CLINTON AS SEALED MY VOTE! IM ASHAMED FOR ALL WOMAN AND MOSTLY WOMAN OF COLOR FOR THE WAY OPRAH SINGLE HANDIDLY TUNRED THIS ELECTION AWAY FROM WHAT MATTERS AND INTO RACE FIGHT COMPLETELY DIVIDING THIS COUNTRY! EXACTLY WHAT WILL ELECT A REPUBLICAN, SO THANK OPRAH AMERICA! WHEN YOU CAN’T TAKE YOUR CHILD TO A DOCTOR, OR LOOSE YOUR HOME AND JOB. Those supporting oprahbama because of winphrey are the same ones who insisted OJ was innocent. My child’s future and health are more important that oprahs being power hungry or the color of a mans skin. Obamawinphrey would have done better without her support. Most people left the venues in IOWA/NH/SC before obamaboy even came onstage. What’s that tell you secondly, Oprahs mentor Mya Angelo and her so-called boyfriend (no not Gail king) Steadman both support Clinton. Hillary is one of the most outstanding women of the 21 century. Because of that and had a large lead in the polls, she is continually dragged through the mud, bashed, ridiculed and called numerous names; by ALL media outlets (men controlled)Osama’s camp started circulating bogus memos and lies about her early in the campaign and now about her mother and daughter, of course obama said he didn’t know. Where’s the ridicule media? DISGUSTING! What a nasty sick group at oprhabama camp! That’s what you’re voting for when you support the likes of him. NO OTHER WOMAN IN POLITICS HAS EVER HAD TO WITHSTAND, SUCH PERSONAL ATTACKS TRYING TO HELP THE SAD DISFUCTIONAL STATE THIS GREAT COUNTRY. It makes me ASHAMED OF HOW WE DO THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY! Even today, she continues to with stand numerous personal attacks from men who are imitated like obama and Edwards. The media has not reported on her campaign or outstanding public service record and that she outshines all other on the stage. She continues to be attacked by any supporter that has a negative opinion about oprahbama. THIS IS A DISGRACE TO OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM, that the media types like oprah are selling the Dream yes, oprah has put a dollar amount on Dr. Kings dream. NO ONE APPEARS TO BE INTERESTED IN WHATS BEST FOR THE US AND THE FUTURE SAFETY AND HEALTH CARE OF OUR CHILDREN like Hillary Clinton does. Obama would rather try the race game when he was down in the polls; again EXACTLY like OJ Simpson’s losing trial, the race card ALWAYS gets thrown around because they don’t want to be held accountable for their failures and or lack of experience. Oprah Winphrey and Obama are trying to sell America just like bush/Chaney. If obamawinphrey gets the nom WE KNOW VERY WELL, HE CANT WIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, THIS COUNTRY WILL FALTER UNDER A NEW 2008 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENCY… OBAMA IS HUGH MISTAKE FOR THIS COUNTRY, HE CANNOT BRING THIS COUNTRY TOGETHER, AND HE AND OPRAH HAVE DIVIDED US MORE THAN ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. AND NOW, EVEN MOVE DIVIDED AS A COUNTRY AFTER LAST WEEKENDS DOG AND PONY SHOW Yes Oprah has power, look what she did with it! She put women, black or white back 50 years! She makes it difficult for any other educated BLACK WOMAN TO SUCCEED NOW! I would never watch, read or use a product Oprah endorses. DO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMAWINPHREY, YOU’RE SELLING YOUR CHILDS FUTURE!
B Barrow was right, Florida don’t count because they’ve been stripped of their votes for primarying too early.
If Hillary looses Iowa and NH, she’s finished.
C- I’m also pleased that voters aren’t blindly accepting prepackaged narrative and are deciding for themselves. The lack of predictability in these races is great stuff. The Huckabee phenom is huge news, but will pale in comparison to an Obama coup. Like Michael, my sense is that Hill’s still the favorite. But Obama’s got charisma and Mo and money. I’m sure stranger things have happened… just not in my looong lifetime (Jimmy Carter, perhaps?)
Josey wow…just…wow…I barely know where to start.
OK, let’s start with some web-etiquette. Being that you’re "educated" I’m sure that this will matter to you. Using CAPS is considered shouting, and should be done very sparingly, only when you are trying to emphasize a few words or when you truly want people to think you are shouting. A sizable portion of web readers will not take you seriously if you use too many CAPS and a certain number will ignore you outright.
Secondly, on this particular blog it’s considered usual to back up especially strong claims with some evidence, or rationalization. Hillary is great, Obama is bad, does not count as such.
Thirdly, I’ve barely seen the race card used at all in this election, by Obama or Clinton. Likewise, nothing I’ve seen of Oprah would make me think she’s endorsing Obama because he’s black. Had she endorsed Clinton, I wouldn’t think it was because she’s a woman. If you care to give some actual examples that show a trend of race-baiting, you’re welcome to.
Fourthly, you accuse, using no evidence, of Oprah and Obama of using the race card while using the gender card shamelessly. Media attention to Clinton’s faults aren’t because she’s perceived the front runner and therefore gets more attention, not because she might actually have faults, no. It’s because she’s a woman! All those nasty men hate her because she has different pee-pee parts! And all the women who don’t like her are stupid or traitors like Oprah!
You assume that if Clinton loses the nomination, the presidency will go Republican, and then that if the next president is a Republican, something akin to the Apocalypse will ensue. Both are empty statements that lack even the slightest rationalization or evidence thereof.
You say Obama would divide the country while Hillary would unite it. That’s an interesting position to take, considering that pretty much everyone thinks exactly the opposite, including a fair number of Republicans, who wouldn’t vote for Obama but admit he’d probably be easier to work with than Clinton.
Oh, no doubt, if Hillary is dethroned it will be huge news. And I’m starting to think it will happen, mainly because I think the discipline of her campaign is unraveling now that they’re on the ropes. She doesn’t play defense very well, because the only play she seems to know is the victimization card- but this time it’s not the "vast right wing conspiracy" that’s to blame for her slip in the polls, and I don’t see how she can paint it as such.
I dunno, C. Not that long ago, the GOP debaters were focused on Hillary and no one else. Her campaign is totally baffled on how to handle Obama. But his surge, in the final analysis, has as much to do with his positives than her negatives. Still, it’s pretty amazing- but not totally unheard of- McGovern upset Muskie in 72, and Carter beat no one in particular in 76.
As political junkies all, it’s just great to have all of this unpredictability.
A question- why hasn’t the recent success of the Surge benefitted Hillary, who has a relatively moderate Iraq stance? Or is the surge simply irrelevant to Iowa Dems- as they have their minds made up already?
"A question- why hasn’t the recent success of the Surge benefitted Hillary, who has a relatively moderate Iraq stance? Or is the surge simply irrelevant to Iowa Dems- as they have their minds made up already?"
My speculation is that the public rejects the notion that one needs to have a specific position all the time - to them, the war is in flux and the attempts of the left/right-pundits to turn "Iraq" into a litmus test where nothing but rigid optimism, scepticism or pessimism will do. In that perspective Hillary’s approval of the original invasion was a miss, and her approval of the surge a hit.
yes