Right Down The Middle is a moderately conservative political blog run by Topher Pagliarella. It is now hosted at TopherMedia. You can learn more about Topher here.
Below are my older posts, from late 2007. They remain here for archival purposes.
Andrew Sullivan Disingenuous? NEVER!
So as you may have heard--and you may not have cared--Andrew Sullivan believes that Ron Paul would just be the bestest candidate for the Republican Party ever and ever.
He's also not a big fan of Michael Dale Huckabee. He posted Huckabee's Christmas ad, saying "Christ: Huckabee goes there" and then posting an letter from a reader who says:
My initial reaction to that ad was probably similar to yours: yes, we know Mike, you are a Christian. The Christian candidate. The conservative candidate who is an authentic Christian. In other words it got my hackles up.
I understand. After all, to run a Christmas ad--especially one with a window that sure looks like a cross!--is basically using Jesus as an endorsement. Heck, I'm sure if Ron Paul had run some kind of ad where he was sitting in front of the camera in a big red sweater a'la Mike wishing everyone a Merry Christmas while carols played in the background, Sullivan would condemn him and withdraw his endorsement.
Or post it five days ago.
Incidentally, here is the original Huckabee ad. Merry Christmas to you from me, Mike, and Ron.
Posted Dec. 18th, 2007.
I'm not normally in the business of posting Democratic campaign videos...
But I don't think any Republican could better illustrate why Senator Hillary Clinton should not be President. Mind you, all of these clips are from the same debate.
Posted Dec. 16th, 2007.
Putting Huckabee's Rise In Perspective
Cross-posted to Redstate.
For the past couple weeks, we've had a lot of diaries touting one or another poll that shows Huckabee surging somewhere or another. Here is one example. Or here. Or here.
Understandably, many Huckabee supporters are getting excited, and just as understandably, many skeptical commentators point out that you can't look at an individual poll and turn it into a trend.
So, with the help of polling average from our friends at Real Clear Politics, I'd like to step back, take a breath, and see where Mike Huckabee is right now.
Nationally
First of all, national polls are fickle. Way back when in July, Fred Thompson was actually leading. That changed quickly. So I’m not so quick to buy into the “Huckabee in 1st place” narrative stemming from the one Rasmussen poll putting him one point ahead of Giuliani.
Looking at the average, he is a solid second and will probably continue to trend upward for a bit. However, Giuliani is not consistently decreasing, and therefore will stay on top barring a sea change.
Now, how much does national polling mean right now? Not a lot. It’s interesting to see that Thompson and McCain are on a downward trend (Thompson more so), and Romney is trending up a little bit. Overall, this is a fluid race. Huckabee’s upward trend does reflect his increased media coverage, but since the most recent coverage is fairly negative, I’m going to point to his YouTube debate performance as well. (You’ll note that the polling pre-debate had him at 12 or lower, while all post debate polling has him 16 or higher.)
Iowa
I call B.S. on that 39 to 17 Newsweek Poll for Huckabee. The polling sample is way too small, and it’s too much of an outlier. However, it’s not like the past few polls had been encouraging for Romney. See here. Basically, Romney and Huckabee are tied, with a slight edge to Mike. (The graph on that page is incredible for Mike though.)
However, we still have a month, and Thompson is going ahead and moving to Iowa. The danger to Huckabee is that Thompson will split those…for lack of a better term, “Chuck Norris voters”. (The Midwest doesn’t use the term “good ol’ boys”, do they?) Now, of course, Thompson might not hurt Mike. Mike has shown in polling to have the most committed supporters (i.e. “Not likely to change mind”) so he could end up hurting Romney or Giuliani. Who knows? (I don't think Mitt is in great shape if he comes in third in Iowa. Still could win NH, but it would be painful. Second at this point would be fine, though.)
New Hampshire
Now. If played poorly, this state could kill Huckabee. Mike is not going to leave this state with momentum. He is fourth in polling, although only second in InTrade betting. That reflects the belief in an Iowa Bounce, but with only five days between primaries and Mitt likely to get the #2 Iowa spot, that’s not likely. Huckabee’s most encouraging poll came from Rasmussen showing him in a statistical three-way tie for second, but most other polls have shown him around 10. In fact, this is the ONLY place Huckabee has not gotten a post-debate bounce. Whatever he’s selling doesn’t sell here.
Michigan and Nevada
These are big delegate states (well, Michigan is), but no one is treating them like a big deal. Accordingly, we don’t have much by way of polling. Here’s all we have Michigan and Nevada. It looks like Huckabee jumped from 9% to 21% in Michigan for (barely) first place and from 6% to 23% in Iowa for second to Romney. What does it really mean? Without more polls, we don’t really know. It’s fair to say he has a lot more support than he did before, following national trends. If we were to take these polls at face value, Romney has also gained a decent amount in Nevada, and Giuliani and Thompson both caved in entirely in these states (although Giuliani is still a Michigan contender.)
South Carolina
This one I don’t understand. Before the debate, polling was wild. Giuliani and Romney were tied, then one poll had Rudy at 9 to Romney’s 17, then another poll had Giuliani leading. And now, the two post-debate polls have Huckabee leading by 6 and 7.
South Carolina is really unpredictable right now, and I want to see more polling in the state. However, this was always a state that should have been friendly to the southern-fried Baptist preacher, and the rise makes some sense. But it’s just SO drastic, and in fact, because his polling was so low pre-debate, he and Romney are still tied statistically. Romney is still a strong contender, mind you, and Thompson seems to be pushing Giuliani away from the third place spot. I’m not sure what to make of this.
Florida
This is erratic polling at its worst, and I can only attribute it to polling different parts of a large state. Huckabee is a solid second in two of the most recent polls, while he is third and fourth in the other two. Well, the one where he’s fourth is the oldest—but it’s the same time as one of the second place ones!! The other candidates are similarly all over the place, so although I feel confident saying “Huckabee is third”, I have no clue whom he’s in front of. Giuliani is still leading by a lot though and showing no signs of that overall downward trend.
Head to head
Rasmussen is really the only one covering Huck head-to-heads, because his rise is so recent. The three polls are here and here.
Basically, Huckabee is statistically tied with Clinton (45 to her 46) but falls behind both Obama and Edwards by 4 points. This is the EXACT opposite of Giuliani, who polls much closer with Obama and Edwards than he does with Clinton. As recent diaries have pointed out, Mike is only second to John McCain in terms of challenging Clinton in Ohio (although McCain actually leads with 51%) and for obvious reasons is the only Republican that would beat her today in Arkansas.
Now, we do have to understand that Huckabee hasn’t faced a lot of scrutiny. But as of right now, it seems like people are more willing to consider an anti-establishment Republican if he’s running against an establishment Democrat. I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion, but that’s very consistent with how my moderate/left-of-center friends feel about Huckabee. They’re only open to him if Clinton wins the nomination.
Conclusion
To say that Huckabee is leading the GOP field is false. To say that he has narrowed this to a two-man race is false. To say that this is swiftly becoming a three-man race between Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney…not entirely unfounded.
In a lot of ways, Huckabee is where Thompson was when he was weighing his options. However, by being in the race and having worked his way up, Huckabee’s position is less tenuous. He definitely has a chance at being the nominee—IF AND ONLY IF he survives New Hampshire. For his sake, I would suggest he invest strongly in trying for third.
His win scenario is this: First in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, first or second in Michigan and Nevada, first in South Carolina, and second in Florida. This is possible. The scrutiny is coming however, especially on Wayne Dumond and his past tax record. These issues will inevitably hurt him, and may very well deny him the nomination.
Put in perspective, his prospects are not great, but they’re good. He’s in a nice place, but we need to wait for some more validation in polling. Simply put, I wouldn’t bet on his victory, but I darn well would not bet against it.
Posted Dec. 15th, 2007.
The Aftermath of the Republican YouTube Debate
Let me be very direct about this: My boy Huckabee won. Big Time. The best analysis I've seen so far is from my friend Anthony Marenna on his blog here: Living On Anon.
If you'd like some validation from other sources, you can find some excellent state surveys here that show that Republicans who watched the debate were overwhelming likely to view Huckabee as the winner, and some follow-up analysis from one of the most influential bloggers out there. (A liberal, but I think his analysis is on the money.)
Below are two excellent segments to make my point for me.
Posted Dec. 4th, 2007.
Lessons From The Abortive Colbert Campaign
October 16th, 2007 –Stephen Colbert, popular political comedian, announces he will run for President in the South Carolina primary. He passes up the Republican primary first, because he can’t afford the ballot fee. He applies for the Democratic primary, but gets his application rejected by the South Carolina Democratic Party. On November 5th, he drops out of the race. “Oh well,” you might say. “It’s too bad for him, but he’s just a comedian, so it’s not really a big deal.” Wrong. It’s a huge deal, and it reveals some serious problems with our democratic process as it stands.
Let’s start with the Republican ballot. To put your name on the ballot as a candidate, you have to pay $25,000 (plus $10,000 for a candidate like Mr. Colbert who files late). That’s huge. Compare that to the vastly more important New Hampshire primary, where that same status only costs $1,000. And unlike some other state primaries, there is no recourse to collecting signatures from, say, 25,000 voters instead. You either pay up, poll tax style, or you’re not on the ballot.
Now, one payment of $25,000 shouldn’t be a huge burden for a serious presidential candidate. But unlike Stephen Colbert, serious candidates also have to register in forty-nine other states. If the South Carolina Republican Party can impose a $25,000 dollar filing fee, what’s to keep the forty-nine other state Republican parties to impose the same fee? All of a sudden, we’re looking at a potential payment of $1,250,000 just to get on the ballot in all fifty states. That might be great for personally wealthy candidates like Mitt Romney, but it leaves everyone else out in the cold.
In some ways, the system the South Carolina Democratic Party had in place was a lot better. They told Stephen Colbert he could either submit 3,000 signatures or $2,500—a much more reasonable requirement. Here’s the trick though—he met those standards. Colbert filed his papers with an application fee of $2,500, and had he chosen to save money, his supporters were probably on target to meet the signature requirement within a week. So how’d his application get rejected? Well, South Carolina has an extra requirement—you have to meet the approval of their state Democratic Executive Council.
(That’s right—the Democratic party of a Southern state has a law on the books that allows a council of unelected individuals to reject candidates as they please. Try not to read anything into that.)
So Mr. Colbert was rejected by the Executive Council by a vote of 13-3. The reasons given were that he was “not viable” given that he was only running in one state and “not a serious candidate”. Yes, Mr. Colbert is a comedian, and although he is a registered Democrat who believes strongly in his party’s platform, he was running primarily as a comedian. But to say unequivocally that he was not a serious or viable candidate is to gloss over some uncomfortable facts.
First of all, the one-state charge is quite silly coming from South Carolina. You may remember a certain Governor of South Carolina—who was in the Senate until 2003—who staged a regionally-based run for President of the United States. Strom Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform for President in 1948, and won Louisiana, Missisippi, Alabama, part of Tennessee, and—oh yes—South Carolina. He could not have been considered a “viable” candidate, and yet the promotion of segregation made him legitimate enough to the South Carolina Democratic Party at the time.
Secondly, Mr. Colbert was a “serious” candidate if seriousness can be defined as having as much of a chance to win the South Carolina primary as some other contenders. In the only primary poll he was included in, Mr. Colbert polled nearly even with Sen. Joe Biden, and actually led Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and Sen. Mike Gravel. In fact, Colbert’s support nationally was actually quite strong. As an independent running against Mayor Giuliani and Senator Clinton, Colbert pulled 13% of the vote. That’s way more than other possible “serious” candidates in that hypothetical situation, such as New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (8%) or Rep. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader combined (8% and 4%, respectively). In one-on-one matchups against second-tier candidates like Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Mr. Colbert was actually polling far ahead.
I’m not saying Stephen Colbert was going to win the Democratic primary in South Carolina, and I’m certainly not saying he was going to ride that wave to victory in 2008 as an independent candidate. I am saying, however, that the South Carolina Democratic Party must have been ignoring the facts to say he was not a “serious” candidate.
Or maybe they weren’t. As it turned out, the Democratic Executive Committee admitted that they rejected Colbert’s application because of outside pressure. From who, you might ask? In fact, the culprit was State Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum—a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama. Ms. Tenenbaum was concerned that Mr. Colbert could steal some youth votes from Sen. Obama.
To recap: Comedian with substantial national and local support wants to run for office. He is denied by one party for not having an exorbitant amount of money. He is denied by the other party because a supporter of another candidate pressured an unelected group to reject his application.
You can say it’s no big deal. Just don’t say it’s democracy.
Posted Nov. 23rd, 2007.
An Open Letter To Congressman Duncan Hunter
Cross-posted to Redstate.
Dear Representative Hunter,
First of all, I hope you and your family enjoyed Thanksgiving. I'm sure that you all kept your son, First Lieutenant Duncan Duane Hunter, in your thoughts and prayers as he serves his country in Iraq. I'm sure he's brought so much pride to your family, as he has to his country.
Truth be told, sir, you've done us proud too. I'm not merely talking about your highly decorated service in Vietnam, or all the pro bono legal work you did for the poor before entering politics. No, I'm talking about your record in the Congress. From 1980 to present day, you have served this country with honor as a United States Congressman who has carried the banner for conservatism and peace through strength. In fact, out of all our candidates, you have the most experience in government, and are only behind Senators Biden and Dodd among all the candidates.
You have held strong to your pro-life convictions, and earned triple-digit sponsorship on your Right To Life act in the House. You have stood strong on border security, and yet, you regularly win north of 60% of the Hispanic Vote in your district and recently were the only Republican with the "cajones" to show up to the primarily Democrat National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. We haven't agreed on everything, sir. You hold the dubious distinction of being a Republican who opposed NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO. But we understand your concern for American workers, and applaud the intent if not the action.
Unlike others, I do not dismiss you for being a Congressman rather than a Senator. I understand that in a state as generally Democratic as California, there is no room for job advancement in that way. You have as much right to be on that stage as anyone.
Except...it's November. Late November, at that. On January 3rd, we will be casting our first votes in Iowa. Remember Iowa? Gov. Tommy Thompson dropped out after receiving 1039 votes. You got 174. Five days later is New Hampshire. You're fighting Tancredo for seventh place there. Yes, out of eight.
You put up a great fight. You have never sounded out of your league in a single debate. But at this point, without a lead in any early state--not even Wyoming or Nevada--it's just not possible. Something terrible would have to happen not only to Rudy Giuliani, but John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson. I'm not even sure you could compete with Paul's money if it came down to you two and Tancredo.
Maybe your aspiration is for something other than the Presidency. Maybe you'd like to be Vice President, or (as has been suggested from the day you announced) defense secretary. Quite honestly, Congressman, you're not helping your chances at those positions by setting yourself up for a series of embarrassing defeats. If you have an aspiration for a lower position, then just go ahead and endorse the person you think has the best chance.
It pains me to say this, it really does. If you caught fire, I was ready to support you in a heartbeat. But you didn't, and Congressman Hunter, I think it's time you stepped down from this race.
Posted Nov. 23rd, 2007.
