Why Don't Republicans Organize to Beat Huck?
By indieiowa Posted in Elections — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Why don't Republicans organize to make sure Huck doesn't win? There seems to be a lot of ... ahem ... *concern* about the possible nomination of Huck, but uncharacteristically, I don't see any effort to organize an effective response.
Can't people drop the bear hug they have on their number one guy and all agree on a common second choice? The rest of the pack has divided Republicans on various issues - immigration, taxes, the war. But while they argue Huck is going to walk to victory.
So I ask you - will an effort begin to mend the rest of the party? Or will Huck redefine what it means to be a Republican? And how will the new guy fair against Hillary?
And who will Rush rail against for the next four years if Huck wins it all? :-)
We need to drop our candidate and rally around Rudy, or Romney, or Fred!, or McCain. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a candidate that everyone can agree on. I think it'll change a bit the close we get to the actual vote/caucus. Cough*McCain*Cough
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Hmmm. Just saying. If Thompson pops up I will be surprised, but I can go that way for sure.
Shall we decide this by vote or should I just make an executive decision?
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
...and a large part of the base won't be motivated. This situation *could* provide an opening for a Bloomberg and/or Paul third party run. But, I honestly don't think Huck will win the nomination.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
And I think he can motivate the base, just not a few on redstate. No, he won't motivate them for sure. But he is very different than Hillary.
-babies in the womb have a fighting chance
-I get to keep my gun
-Gays can stay in the closet a little longer
-No new taxes
-We fight to win in Iraq
There are more but I am going to sleep now. Good night.
What is this supposed to mean?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
How do people feel about a third party run by Paul? Wouldn't that be a very big problem if, for instance, Huck was the nominee?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I guess I disagree. I think Huck may actually be able to beat Hillary. *IF* he can pull some evangelical Dems and moderates to his side - which I think he can. As I said, I think evangelicals are single issue voters. And I think they feel manipulated by Bush's brand of moderate evangelicalism (I know thats an oxymoron, but you know what I mean.)
If Huck wins, the Republican party will be fundamentally changed - no pun intended :-)
Depending on your perspective, it may be changed for the better or worse. I'm just surprised there hasn't been any effort to organize a rational reaction to this, given the emotion a Huck nominee seems to illicit, and the historical significance of this.
Can't people drop the bear hug they have on their number one guy and all agree on a common second choice?
As Darin pointed out above, each candidate's supporters believes it's up to the other candidates' supporters to unite around his guy. There's no way they'll "all agree on a common second choice" before the first votes are cast.
The rest of the pack has divided Republicans on various issues - immigration, taxes, the war. But while they argue Huck is going to walk to victory.
There's absolutely no way Huckabee can win the nomination. After Super Duper Tuesday, probably before, there'll be one leading alternative to Huckabee if Huckabee's still in the running.
That guy will ultimately be the Republican nominee, regardless whether it's Romney, Giuliani, McCain or Thompson. Any one of them will win an overwhelming majority of Republican voters in a one on one against Huckabee. The overwhelming majority of delegates won by other candidates before they drop out will also support whoever is the alternative to Huckabee.
I predict then, that we'll see one of the lowest voter turn out ever. Maybe Hillary getting the Dem nod will be the only saving grace.
If it's so important for everybody to unite around one candidate against Huckabee, before the first primary, it has to be just one person to the exclusion of all the others. Which candidate should that be?
Or are you going to say you don't know which candidate we should unite behind, and you're just waiting for somebody to tell you who to vote for?
Then once you or somebody says who we all need to unite behind, how are you going to convince the supporters of other candidates that their guy isn't the one everybody else should unite behind?
Well if I was as against Huck as much as many here are then I would suggest you support the one who polls best against Hillary, and the one who can pull in independents. Thats McCain.
Is it Huckabee you support? McCain? Or do you go around advising people to support someone you don't support?
Thats my point exactly. People here pretend like politics is like a sport, and they all have their favorite team, and even their cheerleaders, like Rush.
So they see candidates like "my team" and back them regardless. Thats just surprising to me. So you're uncomfortable that I don't obviously support team A, so you can rally against him or enthusiastically support him.
Can't we talk about politics and strategy with out reducing it to a my team vs your team simplicity?
... except they substitute their favorite candidate's name where you say we all need to unite around Thompson[Insert name].
...until it's your ox that gets nominated to be sacrificed.
The problem is that Romney probably has the best shot other than Huckabee, but he's Clintonian is his need to please everyone. Giuliani is still slightly ahead nationally and certainly has a chance to win, but evangelicals can't stand him and he's dropping in the polls. McCain polls the best against Clinton and is making a resurgence, but he's a media-focused moderate who pisses off conservatives at every opportunity and has been in Washington about 20 years too long. Everyone always says he is conservative, but he is in favor of high taxes, anti-free speech, weak on counterterrorism, weak on global warming, weak on judges, and more. Thompson is probably the best example of a unifying candidate, but he has no major accomplishments to speak of, is not inspiring or a great speaker (regardless of his acting experience), and is dead last of the top 5 in the polls.
I don't really think there's an option than to vote for your guy as long as you think he has a chance. Once he drops out, vote for whoever is up against Huckabee.
If a majority of Republicans opposes Huckabee, then he can't win.