The Huckster's In Play

So the final tally isn't yet available, but it's looking like Mike Huckabee has trounced Mitt Romney as the #2 guy for the Republicans this Super-Duper-Tuesday.

Of course Arizona Senator John McCain was the big Republican winner this evening, surging into a commanding lead in the delegate count, though still only about halfway to the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination outright.  And the big loser was Romney, who had been trying to position himself as the "conservative" alternative to moderate McCain.  Voters in most states appeared to see Huckabee as the conservative alternative instead, although Huckabee's major wins occurred in the South among evangelical Christians, who may have had more of a problem with Romney's Mormonism than anything else.

At any rate, it seems to me that given the generally warm relations between McCain and Huckabee, and the strong regional showing by Huckabee in an area where McCain is relatively weak, this may be a setup for an eventual McCain-Huckabee ticket in November.

I can only hope...  McCain-Huckabee would have a very good chance of beating Obama-Anyone, and would virtually guarantee a victory over Clinton-Anyone.

But then, that would be the smart thing for the Republicans to do -- so I'm not holding my breath that it'll happen. 

It would also be good for the country, by the way, as McCain is more of a fiscal conservative while socially moderate, and Huckabee seems more of a genuinely compassionate conservative, than prior Republican occupants of the White House have been.  Such an outcome could signal a revival of the Republican party as a reasonable, moderate force in American politics.

Like I say, I'm not holding my breath.  But if that day comes when the Republicans nominate forces of (relative) moderation, I just might be able to register as a Republican again.

Comments

[phriedom]

I think that the way Obama appeals to moderates and independents cannot be overcome by a McCain-Huckabee ticket. But if Clinton gets the nomination, The Dems give up their biggest weapon (the unpopularity of the war) an gain more women voters, and McCain-Huckabee still loses.

Besides, bass if for people who can't really play guitar.

[David Wright]

Obama does appeal to moderates and independents -- as does McCain -- but, sadly, the reality is that there is still a segment of the population that would vote against Obama simply because of his race. And they aren't all on the Republican side of the aisle, I guarantee.

Plus, I've had the feeling for a very long time now that the "Obama Buzz" (never mind the general enthusiasm over Democratic turnout in the primaries and caucuses) has more to do with the fact that the Democratic race is just more interesting than the Republican race -- but that doesn't necessarily translate to the Democratic candidate (whomever it turns out to be) being more popular than the Republican candidate in the general election.

Obama hasn't really been tested in the media yet. That'll change if he gets the nomination (I mean, c'mon, it really should have changed before now for crying out loud!!!) And there are very legitimate questions of ability and experience that need to be carefully considered by the electorate if Obama goes up against McCain.

I'm not saying that McCain has a cakewalk over Obama. That race would be pretty close. I think McCain has an excellent chance against Obama, but he's not a lock.

I think McCain is virtually a lock against Clinton, however.

One thing that McCain is going to have trouble with is his "John Kerry" moment of saying that the US could have troops in the Middle East for the next 100 years. Somewhat akin to the "I voted for the funding before I voted against it" this is absolutely true but easily misinterpreted and certainly very easily used as a bludgeon against him. McCain doesn't mean that we'll be at war for the next 100 years in Iraq, any more than we've been at war in Korea for the past 50+ years. But it just doesn't sound good in a quick sound bite, and that could very well come back to haunt him in the end.

Clinton motivates more Republicans to vote than ANY Republican candidate could ever hope to do. And Clinton motivates more extreme lefties to sit out the election (or vote Green or some other wacky idea) than she motivates women voters to come to the cause (women historically vote more Democratic anyhow, so the net positive gains are not likely to be real strong).

Please, oh please, let Clinton take the Democratic nomination. I'd love to test my theory. I'd put some serious money on it, in fact... :-D

[phriedom]

I am sure that the number of people that would vote for Clinton or, theoretically speaking, Edwards but would not vote for Obama is greater than zero. But Obama gets to balance that against a significant number of people who will vote for him if given the chance or stay home if it is Clinton. Racism is alive and well in the US, but most racists are conservatives.

Clinton of course has the same kind of plus and minus in being a woman. There are some people who won't vote for her because she is a woman, and there are some people who will vote for her because she is a woman.

My problem with Clinton is that she voted for the war. And her excuses don't satisfy me. If she knew then what she knows now? Well I knew. 23 Senators knew. 133 Representatives knew. She warned the president before they passed it that it wasn't permission to start a preemptive war? That is exactly what it was. And it was clear that the administration would stop negotiating and invade as soon as they had that permission. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and several other key administrators were all part of the PNAC that started urging President Clinton to invade Iraq in 1998, so it should have been clear to Sen. Clinton that their desire to overthrow Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, Al Qada, or WMDs.

And then it all went wrong, just as many predicted, and he got reelected anyways and I got sick of politics for the next 4 years.