Mike Huckabee Continues to Make Impressive Gains in State and National Opinion Polls
By Mediahawk Posted in 2008 — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
crossposted @ newsandpolicy.com
The story over the past couple of days has been Ron Paul's haul of more than $5 million in the GOP nomination race and on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's fundraising triumph over Obama in the third quarter.
But it appears that the media is missing an even more important development in the nomination race --- Mike Huckabee's gradual but sustained upward movement in opinion polls and the decreasing gap between him and the four GOP top-tier candidates.
Despite a slow fundraising in the third quarter the former Arkansas governor and GOP presidential hopeful has made impressive gains in both national and state opinion polls measuring voters' preferences in regard to the crop of GOP candidates.
The latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll shows Huckabee with a voter preference of 8 %, just a few points behind better-funded John McCain (12%) and Mitt Romney (11%), and within striking distance of Fred Thompson (17%).
Huckabee's dramatic rise in voter preference is illustrated by the fact that four to six months ago he was barely registering on the radar of voters. In June the same Washington Post - ABC News poll showed him with a national GOP voter preference of 2%. In April it was even lower - 1%.
But where Huckabee has really surprised and demonstrated a growing grassroots support is in states polling. In the the bellwether state of Iowa the latest Insider Advantage poll has him at 13% and tied with Thompson at third place, and only three points behind second-place Rudy Giuliani (16%) and closing in on leader Romney (24%). The most recent Newsweek poll also showed Huckabee with a similar level of voter preference in Iowa.
In another early nominating state, South Carolina, the same Insider Advantage poll has him only 10 percentage points behind leader Fred Thompson.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich and former President Bill Clinton recently touted Huckabee as a potential breakout candidate. His slow third quarter fundraising has dampened some of that expectation.
But with poll after poll showing him making such consistent upward movements it looks more and more likely that the last quarter could well see him catapulted to the very top of the top-tier in the GOP race if not in the national polls then in the critical early primary states.
Given his anemic fundraising, he has his work cut out to force his way to the top before the primaries begin. Conventional wisdom says that his limited funds makes it next to impossible to break out. But conventional wisdom can be wrong as Fred Barnes of Weekly Standard points out :
Be wary of that poll and all others at this stage of the presidential campaign, three months before actual voting begins, first in Iowa, then in New Hampshire. The numbers are soft. Voters are fickle in deciding how to vote in caucuses and primaries. They change their minds repeatedly. They take general elections more seriously.
The unreliability of polls conducted months before the first contests was amply demonstrated four years ago. The Iowa Poll, conducted for the Des Moines Register in early November 2003, found Richard Gephardt in the lead at 27 percent, followed by Howard Dean at 20 percent and John Kerry at 15 percent.
Meanwhile, a Gallup Poll conducted nationally for USA Today in early December 2003 had Dean in the lead with 22 percent, trailed by Wesley Clark (17), Gephardt (13), Joe Lieberman (10), and Kerry and Edwards (both 7).
Now recall what happened in the Iowa caucuses in January: Kerry won in a romp with 38 percent. Then he went on to win the New Hampshire primary a week later and virtually lock up the nomination. The polls taken the prior fall were, to put it mildly, misleading.
Fundraising numbers aren't a foolproof indication of how candidates will do either. The subhead of the Post story noted that Clinton "also tops Obama in latest fundraising data." But who was the fundraising leader at this time in 2003? Not Kerry. He'd been outraised $25.4 million to $20 million by Dean. And Dean had $12.4 million on hand to Kerry's $7.8 million.
Question what is the relationship between support for the FairTax and support for Huckabee.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
And as much as I'd love a Thompson/Huck ticket, he would certainly help balance out the Guiliani ticket if Rudy ends up winning. It will also make voting for a pro-abortion candidate slightly easier to swallow if he's got Huckabee and Estrada backing him.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.-
A Thompson/Huckabee ticket looks more promising and makes more sense for the conservative movement... Rudy is a bleeding New York pro-gay, pro-choice liberal ... Thompson at least is a conservative libertarian who can be converted to true social conservatism.
It would certainly be the best thing for the conservative movement, and I think I've said, Huckabee is by far my second choice. But I think the yelping of us being a regional party (not that I mind) of the South will prevent a Tenneesean and an Arkansasan from joining the ranks. I don't like Rudy, but If he wins, I think Huck is a more likely choice than Thompson.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.-Ann Coulter
Hook Em!
I read something interesting the other day. A military historian was commenting on the negative effects of our military technology hyper supremacy. Our bombs are so accurate that they almost are too clean. The point is basically that we were so precise in our bombing, the average Iraqi never felt conquered. The average guy still had electricity, saw civilian infrastructure still in place, and his life went on as usual.
There are many morality issues related to this, but in historical context it makes sense. We do have a history, starting with Gulf War 1, of ending hostilities prior to defeating the enemy.
Molon Labe!
Nanny Huckabee? That populist? No thanks.
Rudy is a bleeding New York pro-gay
Lemme guess. That makes you "anti-gay." Nothing like affirming the "bigotry" of Republican party members! Well done!
Thompson at least is a conservative libertarian who can be converted to true social conservatism.
Converted to true social conservatism? Who do you social conservatives think you are exactly? Fred Thompson would laugh in your face over that nonsense. He's "not going to dance to anyone's tune." Especially that theocrat Dobson's.
YOU need to be converted to true conservatism, or go form that God party y'all are trying to browbeat and blackmail the Rs with. Frankly, I welcome it.
Whatever voter losses the party incurs through your short-sighted, self-defeating de facto votes for Hillary will eventually be made up when the party gets back to its Goldwater roots and it regains the core business vote, the libertarians (and even some Libertarians), the moderates and the Independents; you know, the ones it lost because of the SoCons and the NeoCons.
Good riddance! Goldwater Republicanism (true conservatism) is making its comeback, and it's gonna be here to stay.
__________________
"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
Barry Goldwater
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
__________________
"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."
Barry Goldwater
I think that this is the Hinz Rule.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I could be mistaken though. n/t.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
we need to get back to "true conservatism" AKA Goldwater conservatism. I guess Dobson is a "theocrat", but I think he is worse, he is a megalo maniac. He casts so many stones, his house must be made of depleted uranium.
You agree with the idea that we'd be BETTER OFF throwing out the Neoconservatives AND the religious right?
You know, before all of them were in the party, we could win elections. But that was when our party was half liberal, with decidedly non-Goldwaterian guys like Rockefeller (or Giuliani, were he around then) in the party.
At NO time has our party EVER been dominated by strong conservatism. Do you really think we'd be *closer* to Goldwater with guys like Linc Chafee coming back in exchange for the loss of guys like Sam Brownback?
As for the Neocons, do you want to get rid of ALL the Reagan Democrats, or just some?
actually read Doc's response, Mr. Stevens? He said, "I agree we need to get back to true conservatism AKA Goldwater conservatism," and then he proceeded to be very very funny.
How you misinterpreted his response (or my OP for that matter) into a desire to purge ALL the SoCons and the NeoCons from the R party is beyond me.
Not all of them would bolt, since not all of them are that self-defeating. The ones I bid "good riddance" to are the ones who would hand Hillary the keys to the White House because they didn't get their way, and those who would continue to force their brand of morality onto others who do not share it. You know, like Dobson and his followers.
Republicanism is supposed to stand for individual liberty, for one thing. We already have mommies to the left of us, we really don't need minister daddies on the right.
______________
"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
Barry Goldwater
I dind't read his subject and the first line of his comment as one sentence; I guess you are. That changes the meaning obviously.
And here's the part where I read your comment that way:
Whatever voter losses the party incurs through your short-sighted, self-defeating de facto votes for Hillary will eventually be made up when the party gets back to its Goldwater roots and it regains the core business vote, the libertarians (and even some Libertarians), the moderates and the Independents; you know, the ones it lost because of the SoCons and the NeoCons.
Good riddance! Goldwater Republicanism (true conservatism) is making its comeback, and it's gonna be here to stay.
This part here seems to suggest clearly that you dislike the "SoCons and the NeoCons," and would be happy to replace them with the finger-in-the-wind "independents" along with the other groups you list.
I do not want us to lose ANY election and I do not want to "kick out" anyone. I DO think Goldwater style conservatism will bring in the MOST factions to our party. The different factions may not get all they want, but we can build our strength on the issues that unite us. I think small government conservatism is that issue.
Molon Labe!
"You know, before all of them were in the party, we could win elections. But that was when our party was half liberal, with decidedly non-Goldwaterian guys like Rockefeller (or Giuliani, were he around then) in the party."
But Goldwater took the party away from Rockefeller. Reagan won with Goldwater conservatism. When we act conservative, we win, when we do not, we lose.
Molon Labe!
Ronald Reagan: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
__________________
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater
Where he has an actual chance of winning.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
If you look at the details of the Post-ABC poll you'll see that Sam Brownback factors in at a still small percentage. Both Huckabee, Brownback and Thompson are competing for the social/religious conservative vote in Iowa.
Both Brownback and Thompson have impressive Senate voting records, but not so much on the stump. Thompson's been criticized for his non-answers and laziness, while Brownback is just too good of a Senator and lacks the ability to revv the electorate.
That, coupled with Huckabee's ground game in Iowa, I feel, are distinctive factors in a candidate's ability to produce at the caucuses.
The real question's this: If Huckabee gets 2nd place at the caucuses will you still say "but he hasn't raised money so far..." No, you'll be shocked, impressed and will hope to God that he can run the federal Government as well as he has run his campaign.
Mind you, I think we've got 6 candidates with any shot at all on the Republican Side at this point, so I'm not discounting Huckabee, but he's got a really really tough uphill battle.
Dobson and his crew, for whatever reason, refuse to get behind Huckabee? I've heard people say it's from the belief that the candidate 'doesn't have a chance of winning' because of the polling numbers up to this point. I think that's total bunk. Dobson and crew won't get behind Huckabee because they don't think Huckabee will listen to them and their ... advice, or be as ... hard-nosed about things like Homosexuality or Immigration and so forth. Huckabee has always come across as less a fire and brimstone type and more of the forgiving type
Which means they're afraid he won't push the issues as hard as they want it pushed. It's possible the Dobson crew could grudgingly come aboard, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on it.
Second, and it's the elephant in the room that people don't like talking about, is the money issue. 600K cash on hand is not going to cut it. And with the front loading of primaries, there's not way Huckabee would have time to build on any victories in Iowa to generate the cash needed.
Now, there is a counterpoint to this, which is the frontloading of the primaries means that a relative unknown can come up and make a strong showing and potentially ride the wave to more victories. But remember, Guiliani, Romney, and Thompson will have a month after Iowa to counter any free press gained by a good showing in Iowa. And without a good warchest to counter their attacks, Huckabee could find himself defined by his opponents.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
he is the tier 1 of the 2nd tier candidates. Most here, socons, fiscons, libertarian cons, and the like have a strong disdain for Huckabee. However, facts can be annonying, and the fact is Huckabee is probably the best speaker we have on the stump. He is at least on par with Rudy.
We are not normal, let's just admit it. The present "normal" is some blog about Britney Spears or some "cool" Facebook page. Most people, even Republican primary voters, do not chop up every record and try to find every fault. If you go to Huck's website, his main positions (as stated) are pretty down the line conservative. Yes, he has a populist streak, but he does not seem to push it in debates.
You claim that Dobson does not support Huck, well why not? Dobson is not a well rounded conservative, he is a Bible-con as far as I can tell. He simply "knows" who God would pick and that is who Dobson will pick. We know Dobson hates Rudy and Fred, I doubt he likes McCain or Mitt (for obvious reasons) So where does that leave Dobson? He has to pick someone, I would think it WOULD be Huck.
Molon Labe!
And I'm glad you left off the American Research Group polls that gave us such absurd results Their poll in Iowa not only threw Huckabee down to 4%, but showed Rudy nearly tied with Romney--absurd. This is not even to mention their TEN-POINT disparities with Thompson and Romney in South Carolina with regards to every other poll. Romney going from 15% to 26% while Thompson drops from 24% to 10%? Give me a break.
..instead of talking about Third Parties, Dobson were to come out and endorse...say...Duncan Hunter.
How does that skew things? Instant viability, or non-starter?
...that we can elect poor to mediocre men President. What will it take to elect a good one...?
I think that Republicans are mistaken thinking that Democrats would even consider voting for Rudy. I consider myself a moderate to conservative Democrat and I voted for Kerry in 2004. In the beginning, I was actually considering voting for Rudy, because I'm not a huge fan of Hillary. I think that Hillary panders too much, that she's too afraid of the loony left (like Moveon.org), and I'm just tired of the whole Clinton/Bush thing. Also, I fear that Hillary will be very polarizing and I don’t think that the country can take another eight years of being so divided. I’m more loyal to my country than I am to my party.
Well, I'm here to tell you that I changed my mind about Rudy when I saw him tell Ron Paul in the South Carolina Republican debate to "take back" what he said in regards to 9/11. To me, Rudy's statement represented everything that I dislike about the Bush Administration--this whole "you're either with me or your with the terrorists" kind of mentality. Don't get me wrong, I think that Ron Paul is a little wacky, but he has a right to be heard--after all, this is America and no one should have to "take back" what he or she says. Furthermore, I don't like the way Rudy publicly divorced his second wife (very heartless), or the fact that he doesn't talk to his kids. Surprise, surprise--Democrats have family values too. I mean, the more I find out about Rudy the more authoritarian he seems and the less I like him. Furthermore, I haven't talked to ANY Democrat who would even consider of voting for Rudy. Anyway, I actually gave Mike Huckabee money the other day, because I am impressed with his debate performances, I think he’s someone who can unify the country and he’s knowledgeable on healthcare (I'm a medical student so that's important to me). Not to mention, he seems to have a genuinely good heart. However, if Rudy is the Republican nominee, I will hold me nose and vote for Hillary. Actually, I won't be voting FOR Hillary--I'll be voting AGAINST Rudy.
This is my first post on Redstate. I thought that you all might be interested in hearing a Democrat’s perspective on this matter. Feel free to ask me any questions. Thank you for allowing me to post my opinion on your website.
...first, I think you have to remember that 9/11 is a much more personal experience for somebody like Mr. Giuliani that it is for most of us. And Rep. Paul was essentially blaming us for it having happened.
Now this is much less pointed language than Ward Churchill used. But the general message of both of them was the same: things we did, policies we crafted, etc. gave the impetus for these people to attack us.
Second, I'm something of a defender of the "with us or with the terrorists" statement by Mr. Bush. I think a lot of people misinterpreted that to mean that unless somebody fell in behind his policy decisions (Iraq, etc.) that we were going to consider them a foe...as if to say: either you support me or I'll come after you next.
I don't think that's what he was saying. To my ears, he was telling the Muslim world that we'd no longer tolerate duplicity when it comes to aiding or harboring terrorists -- and that, for too long, we'd allow countries to get away with playing both sides of the fence (we're still allowing them to, BTW...so, sadly, it was empty rhetoric).
I don't think he meant that France and Russ Feingold were now "with the terrorists." They're clearly "with us", even if they may dissent on the chosen policy path. And that's not who he was speaking to, anyway.
Understand that there has been a long-standing debate in the foreign policy world about whether to distinguish stateless paramilitary groups from those sovereigns which give them aid and comfort. Mr. Bush was saying that the US would no longer make that distinction and that, if you aided the jihadists, you would be considered one of them.
And I find it hard to assail that logic, in theory anyway.
I don't see how "conservative" anything could vote for Kerry or Hillary. They are both socialists.
This guy supports a national smoking ban, thats idiotic, I thought Republican were for small business owners (like myself).
Maybe Huckabee didn't get the memo.
They are both drugs. Yes I know that Marijuana is "illegal", but it is no more of a drug than cigarettes. In fact, cigarettes kill more people than marijuana.
Let's give people the "right" to drink and drive while we are at it. It is their car, their body, they can do whatever they want. It is their "right".
Let's give people the "right" to murder their babies if they want. It is their body, they can do whatever they want. It is their "right".
I am not for a big government except when it comes to protecting Americans from proven harm. That's why I don't mine the drinking and driving ban. That's why I want to remake abortion illegal. That's why I smoking banned from public places.
If you want to smoke, smoke at home. If you want to drink, drink at home. But, I personally would be all for putting alcohol and smoking in the same category as cocaine and marijuana.
This is absurd and I'm hesitant to justify it with a response.
You do not have a right to kill others, what a laugh. You also don't have a right to control my property business or otherwise. I swear nanny staters can go piss off and form their own nanny party.
Huckabee has been moving up because he's been getting mentioned in the media, and because he hasn't been ducking the debates (like Fred and Mitt and Rudy and John.)
His fundraising is still in the basement for the same reasons it has been all along -- he's seen as big-government type, based on his record in Arkansas, and he's not seen as a strong anti-illegal immigration candidate. I don't see how he ever gets past those two significant roadblocks.
I like Huck but it's over for him. He got tons of press last quarter and only raised a million dollars that's dreadful how is he going to compete?
I guess you're against banning peanut butter from schools? I know it seems ridiculous, however, some people are 'highly' allergic. I'm a smoker and I sure don't want to kill someone.
http://gamecock.townhall.com/2007/05
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
His chances for a breakthrough moment are still small, though.