None Of The Above Wins Iowa?

Actually, none of the above won't win Iowa, but it could make a strong showing and it's important to keep in mind how the caucus actually works when looking at the latest polls putting Huckabee up. As it stands, with Huckabee - 29, Romney - 24 - Rudy - 13 - and everybody else, people may have to go to their second choice, or an uncommitted category if their guy doesn't reach 15%.

In a particular caucus setting, if a candidate receives less than 15% of the vote, their supporters will be re-allocated to other candidates.

Rasmussen incorporates second choices in his polling analysis:

Overall, Romney is the second choice for 21% of likely caucus participants. Huckabee is the second choice for 16%, Giuliani for 15% and Thompson for 14%.

If Rudy, currently at 13 in some polls, doesn't score, it could benefit Mitt more than Huckabee, though Huck could do better among Thompson supporters. In a word, Iowa is unpredictable.

Comments

[jj]

It would be a mistake to underestimate Mike Huckabee. He was a two-term Republican governor in a Democratic state, he was the head of the National Governor's conference, and he has a demonstated ability to work with all kinds of people.

And, to all the critics, he left the State of Arkansas and its new Democratic governor a $1,000,000,000 surplus to play with. That's pretty much unprecedented.

[Dan Riehl]

"a $1,000,000,000 surplus"

How, by raising taxes that ultimately weren't needed? Yeah, that's just great.

[jj]

I'm not necessarily agreeing with his methods, Dan, or the ultimate reason why he shouldn't have refunded that money to taxpayers, or at least a large part of it, my advice was not to underestimate the guy.

And why would he leave his Democratic successor in such great financial shape? Because he wished to create goodwill, I suppose, and prove he could work with, and, in fact, thrive in a Democratic environment. And part of that surplus might be due to an increased tax base due to economic activity. The fact is the governor gets to claim a part of the success in increasing tax revenues due to ecomomic activity.

Again, my advice is not to underestimate the guy, or to take him lightly. He has always appealed to the moderates along with social conservatives, and is able to make and hold broad coalitions.

[seekeronos]

I don't think he is such a bad guy, and I've even considered supporting him if Fred is eliminated (practically speaking) after IA, NH, and SC primaries.

But the thing that does concern me is his love for the tax hikes and the Big Mama Gummint spending... kinda like a Democrat of LBJ's stripe.

[Dan Riehl]

I don't underestimate him, that's why I put him in the top tier after the debate. But I'm unsure of somethings. Sure, he plays well to the Christian Right, but he's big government AND soft on immigration. Social Cons may go with him for his faith, but is that enough? And then there is the Rudy question. If Huckabee takes down Mitt, then doesn't push it - hellp Rudy with Huck potentially as the VP. I'm not so sure that's what social cons want. So, I'm seeing the usual Republican base so fractured, what we may ultimately get is Hillary.

[Dan Riehl]

hellp = hello

[jj]

"...what we may ultimately get is Hillary."

Yes, you have a great point, and I'm not sure she won't win no matter what Republicans do. Fred Thompson had the nomination handed to him on a silver platter, but he apparently doesn't want it. Rudy and McCain are not good enough communicators to win, and Mitt can't win because of the Mormon thing.

So that leaves Huck. He may get the nomination by default, as Republicans will be reluctant to put another person out there who can't communicate his ideas. Just sayin'.

[edward cropper]

Huckabee can work with anyone because he is a Clinton clone who goes where the mush is and rolls over to be the good guy.
How do you think he succeeded as a Republican Governor for two terms with an Arkansas democrat majority?
This guy is slicker than snot. I originally thought he had what it takes to represent conservatives in the 08 election.
Having examined him in more detail I am not in his corner at all. I can take anything from a candidate but duplicity and shyster tendencies.
Tax Hike Mike has both.

[Jacob]

Iowa's Republican caucus doesn't work that way. There's just a straight secret ballot for delagates to the County Conventions (which then sends delagates which then sends delagates to the State Convention). So while the Dems have the 15% threshold, the Republicans don't.

[Fred Beloit]

Oops.

Don't feel comfortable yet with any single candidate, but I'm afraid I won't vote for Mitt nor Huck. These two seem to be plastic people like Hillery, say anything and dance the mazurka around issues to be elected. And these dodges run counter to their records. A case could be made against Rudy along these lines but his decisiveness is a good quality in a President, especially in dangerous times. Cropper makes sense about Huck and the same things could rightly be said about Mitt. At least Rudy, John, and Fred take firm positions on most issues.

Since the opposition party likes legislation from the courts, good court appointments are a must for the next President. Which way would Huck go, or Mitt? Go along to get along?

[seekeronos]

Fred! is the only choice... but he isn't going out of his way to make what should be perfectly obvious to be screamingly apparent to the Right and Center of the USA.