Face it... Huckabee has already won the race that counts in Iowa
All over the internet, a gallant corps of wishful thinkers (headed by Bob Novak- who, to put it mildly, doesn't like Mike Huckabee) are trumpeting a so called "Huckabust," i.e., the end of the "Huckaboom."
The idea is that Mike Huckabee's catching and passing a candidate who has outspent him twenty-to-one here in Iowa, and maintaining a solid second-place ranking among the Republican candidates nationally, is somehow a fluke... and we know that it's coming to an end because one poll or another shows Huckabee losing support.
By definition, of course, polls which show Huckabee gaining support- like the Quad City Times poll that shows Huckabee's lead over Romney at seven points- aren't mentioned. Nor is one apt to be directed in "Huckabust" articles and blog entries to recent Iowa polls in general, in which a anomylous American Research Group poll showing Romney with a nine-point lead has pulled Huckabee's average lead down to two points.
Yesterday, I actually came across a blog chortling about this alleged "Huckabust" because Huckabee's average support in the national race is down to "only" 17.3%-only 4.2% from the lead!
I've been chuckling for a week now over comments from Jeff Fuller and other Romney supporters claiming on the basis of cherry-picking the polls that the Huckabee is crashing and burning, and that Romney is resurgent. Trouble is, the numbers just don't show it. True, the current RCP cycle- like the last one- does contain one poll whose results are far out of step with the rest of the polls for the same period, and which pulls down Huckabee's average lead. But the bottom line remains that, for all the talk about a "Huckabust," Huckabee continues to lead a candidate who has outspent in him Iowa twenty to one- and as soon as one of these oddball results pops up, a series of polls showing Huckabee still doing fine follows in its wake.
I have no doubt that the race here in Iowa will be very close. And I'll let you in on a secret: I think Romney will finish first. I think that, not because he's made his case to the people of Iowa, and they've bought it- he hasn't, and they haven't- but because organization is everything in Iowa, and I just don't think Huckabee will be able to come close to matching Romney's ground game on caucus night.
But it doesn't matter. Romney has already experienced his defeat. The blowout victory in Iowa that was the centerpiece of his national strategy just a few months ago isn't going to happen, and whatever victory he may achieve here will be by two small a margin to provide him with any real momentum. On the other hand, even finishing a strong second is huge for someone who was as obscure as Huckabee was a few months ago, and is being outspent as badly.
So I'd like to suggest that any overeager Romney fans out there consider waiting for the voters to have their say- both here and throughout the country before declaring the "Huckaboom" over. Or at least wait until two polls in a row show that Huckabee really is slipping.
Bottom line: Huckabee has already won the only battle in Iowa that counts. Romney may well finish first- but he won't come out of Iowa with any momentum worth mentioning.
Huckabee may well finish second- but he will, and jolly well should.
In the meantime... go John McCain!
The idea is that Mike Huckabee's catching and passing a candidate who has outspent him twenty-to-one here in Iowa, and maintaining a solid second-place ranking among the Republican candidates nationally, is somehow a fluke... and we know that it's coming to an end because one poll or another shows Huckabee losing support.
By definition, of course, polls which show Huckabee gaining support- like the Quad City Times poll that shows Huckabee's lead over Romney at seven points- aren't mentioned. Nor is one apt to be directed in "Huckabust" articles and blog entries to recent Iowa polls in general, in which a anomylous American Research Group poll showing Romney with a nine-point lead has pulled Huckabee's average lead down to two points.
Yesterday, I actually came across a blog chortling about this alleged "Huckabust" because Huckabee's average support in the national race is down to "only" 17.3%-only 4.2% from the lead!
I've been chuckling for a week now over comments from Jeff Fuller and other Romney supporters claiming on the basis of cherry-picking the polls that the Huckabee is crashing and burning, and that Romney is resurgent. Trouble is, the numbers just don't show it. True, the current RCP cycle- like the last one- does contain one poll whose results are far out of step with the rest of the polls for the same period, and which pulls down Huckabee's average lead. But the bottom line remains that, for all the talk about a "Huckabust," Huckabee continues to lead a candidate who has outspent in him Iowa twenty to one- and as soon as one of these oddball results pops up, a series of polls showing Huckabee still doing fine follows in its wake.
I have no doubt that the race here in Iowa will be very close. And I'll let you in on a secret: I think Romney will finish first. I think that, not because he's made his case to the people of Iowa, and they've bought it- he hasn't, and they haven't- but because organization is everything in Iowa, and I just don't think Huckabee will be able to come close to matching Romney's ground game on caucus night.
But it doesn't matter. Romney has already experienced his defeat. The blowout victory in Iowa that was the centerpiece of his national strategy just a few months ago isn't going to happen, and whatever victory he may achieve here will be by two small a margin to provide him with any real momentum. On the other hand, even finishing a strong second is huge for someone who was as obscure as Huckabee was a few months ago, and is being outspent as badly.
So I'd like to suggest that any overeager Romney fans out there consider waiting for the voters to have their say- both here and throughout the country before declaring the "Huckaboom" over. Or at least wait until two polls in a row show that Huckabee really is slipping.
Bottom line: Huckabee has already won the only battle in Iowa that counts. Romney may well finish first- but he won't come out of Iowa with any momentum worth mentioning.
Huckabee may well finish second- but he will, and jolly well should.
In the meantime... go John McCain!
Comments
On this post, in particular, I will say that the trend has been for Huckabees sudden good fortune to even out, and Romney's sudden fall from grace to trend back upward. Call it a bust or not, but it's real.
As for your overall... umm... strong dislike for Romney, I want to encourage you to soften up some good will for him if you can. Your posts are well researched, and I'm sure you've seen the posts of others that are equally well researched that show that neither McCain nor Huckabee are a paragon of candor and consistency either. It seems odd to me that they together seem to despise Romney so much, but I do think that any and all of them should take a step back at the end of the day and quit throwing around insults long enough to imagine that every single one of them may be doing their best to do the whole "political" thing the best they can--politically despite their common valuing of integrity and decency.
Anyway. My comment may fall on deaf ears, but I hope you are still open enough to consider that Romney may not be the charlatan you believe he is. I could go into specifics, but as you said regarding your own posts, it's all available to you elsewhere if you care to read it.
Try to imagine that Romney may be a very very good thing for this country. You may find that a charitable concession here or can lead to support (if and when necessary, of course).
All the best!
I find it fascinating that you think Mike Huckabee in particular despises Mitt Romney, especially in view of the decision he just announced. On the other hand, has it ever occurred to you that, just maybe, that Romney has spent several million dollars in TV advertising to slander each of them might possibly be reasonable grounds for some, shall we say, ruffled feathers? Hmmmm?
I find it nothing short of bizarre, Coach, that you could make that statement.
Mitt Romney has just won in Iowa.
Huckabee has declined to do the only thing that could have rolled back the gains Romney has made in the past several weeks soley by misrepresenting Gov. Huckabee's record, just as he now is trying to systematically misrepresent John McCain's in New Hampshire. And you seriously wonder why Huckabee and McCain should take it amiss?
Coach, you Romney folks have been in full blown anti-Huckabee mode ever since your man lost the lead several weeks ago. That is what has won this race for you. That, and that alone.
I do not argue that either Huckabee or McCain are paragons of anything in particular. However, I would invite you to read a couple of things from this blog. I'll even provide you with links.
Here you will find my initial endorsement of Mitt Romney
a matter of days before the guy I'd been hoping would run, but didn't think world- Fred Thompson- first said that he was considering the race.
Here is a post in which I defended Romney from a variety of attacks upon him made during the same period.
And here is the post in which I recanted my support for Romney, and explained my reasons why.
If you see any animus toward him in these posts, please point it out. The fact of the matter is that Romney- until the last few weeks- had never left my personal top three choices for the nomination.
He is among them no longer solely because of the nature of his campaign since he lost the lead here in Iowa to Mike Huckabee. I really don't think the problem here is a lack of charity on my part.
The problem is a lack of judgment on Romney's. McCain will do what Huckabee today refused to do. Mitt is the guy who started this crap, and who has all but won the Iowa Caucuses by dishing it out. It ill behooves either he or his supporters to accuse others of ill will for returning the favor in self-defense. And he has what he's about to receive at the hands of the McCain campaign coming to him. Should he try this against any other Republican in the future (assuming he gets that far), Gov. Romney will encounter a response more like McCain's than Huckabee's.
And I suppose that he'll complain that they are picking on him, too. That line is hypocrisy, Coach, in Romney's mouth. Hypocrisy, plain and simple.
The problem, my friend, is that the conduct of Gov. Romney in Iowa has not been that of an honorable, decent man, which I have always previously believed him to be. And if this is really an example of his doing his best to be such in the political arena, I, for one, am simply not impressed.
My best wishes to you, too.
I do understand why you are turned off by Romney and I do understand why Huckabee and McCain are irritated by him. When I said they seem to despise Romney, that was based mainly on what I've read in the MSM about their refusal to reciprocate Romney's calling them friends, and other such little jabs. It could be just MSM foolishness, I don't know. But, I certainly can see how it would be true. It just seems like the degree to which there is animosity is disproportionate. It's politics.
As for me, I still believe they're all doing their best to run honorable, but aggressive campaigns. Where you and Huckabee see Romney as being dishonest, I see an effort to "spin" the facts for a political purpose. Where they are inaccurate, I believe, is not intended to be a lie but extends from a difference of interpretation of the rhetoric used. Yes, yes, this sort of allowance sounds empty and apologetic coming from a Romney supporter, but I offer that concession to all the candidates just the same. (And I'm a Romney supporter because he's the best candidate, not out of loyalty.) Huckabee needs this concession too. Huckabee's calling Romney dishonest and dishonorable can be seen as a character smear (perhaps more-so than Romney's comparison ads), but I see it as him saying what's on his mind because he sees it as defensible and politically expedient, despite that it's damningly negative and a character attack. I don't know how you can say that he's decided to take the high road and not attack back. They've been there, subtle, implied, and pervasive, for weeks. He could refrain from the name calling and speak solely to the misrepresented issues, but he doesn't. But as I said, it's understandable from his own point of view.
I guess I have a few points here. 1) not all Romney supporters can be lumped together as a desperate negative bunch as you've taken to doing (you won't find a comment by me attacking Huckabee, I don't think). 2) Huckabee's slide can't be wholly attributed to Romney's ads (as Jeff Fuller pointed out). 3) If you can't see Romney's behavior as honorable, I understand, given your ardent support for Huckabee. But I think Romney does see his "attacks" as factual and accurate. And for that reason, I do believe his honor is intact. He doesn't have to be in your top selection of candidates, but it would be good if you can rekindle your support for him if and when it's necessary based on giving him the benefit of the doubt in this matter.
If you can't, that's your thing. I just think it will be best for us all to pull together after the primaries are done.
But you want Huckabee to hit Romney and hit him hard with negative ads. John McCain is doing that also in NH, but you wouldn't say that he is not honorable and decent, even with that temper. I don't get your reasoning. Romney is not honorable because of his attacks, but McCain is??? and you want Huckabee to hit Romney with attack ads and that is honorable?
YOUR WORDS: The fact of the matter is that Romney- until the last few weeks- had never left my personal top three choices for the nomination.
He is among them no longer solely because of the nature of his campaign since he lost the lead here in Iowa to Mike Huckabee. I really don't think the problem here is a lack of charity on my part.
But, you like McCain going negative and you think that Huckabee should go negative. How come Romney loses "honorability" in your eyes cause he goes negative??? cause he did it first??? It's called Politics...debating...you bring up an opponents record where he was wrong and you go to town on it. Did Romney say everything about Huckabee, NO! Did Romney leave out important info, YES. Did he misconstrue info, YES. Did Huckabee's ad that he showed at the conference misconstrue info, YES. Romney is an honorable and decent man, and is doing what every other candidate is doing, including Huckabee (although not as subtly).
I do regard misrepresenting the facts as dishonorable,and it is on that basis that I regard Gov. Romney's conduct as dishonorable. It's not their negativity I find objectionable; it's their dishonesty.