7.02.2009

Is Mike Huckabee the New Jesse Jackson?

Michael Barone has a fascinating insight that, dare I say, I'd never really contemplated before.

Huckabee or a candidate with a similar profile can corner the votes of evangelical and born-again Christians and, starting with Iowa, can round up a significant number of delegates. It is conceivable that such a candidate, with the help of Republicans’ winner-take-all delegate allocation rules and if he continues to face multiple opponents, could accumulate enough delegates to win the nomination. But otherwise he is in the position of Jesse Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 Democratic contests, able to run a significant second or third thanks to strong support from one of the party’s core constituencies but unable to run first.
Does this analogy hold water? I've always tended to think of Huckabee, who has more populist views on economics than most other Republicans, as a candidate who had a fair amount of crossover appeal. But Huckabee may be crossing over too far -- appealing to independents and some conservative Democrats, but not necessarily the non-evangelical part of the Republican primary electorate.

Here is how the major Republican candidates split the vote last year before Mitt Romney dropped out of the race after Super Tuesday:



Evangelicals make up a larger share of the Republican primary electorate -- about 40 percent, than black voters do of the Democratic primary electorate -- about 20 percent. But Huckabee was nowhere near as dominant among evangelicals as candidates like Jackson and Barack Obama have been among blacks He won the evangelical vote in about half the states that voted through Super Tuesday; almost all of those wins were in the South. But John McCain and Mitt Romney won the evangelical vote in other states, and Huckabee wound up with only about 37 percent of the evangelical vote overall (weighting for the approximate number of evangelicals in each state). As Barone suggests, a Republican candidate could potentially win the nomination if he absolutely ran the table among evangelicals, even if he had little support elsewhere. But Huckabee didn't do that in 2008, and with Sarah Palin a probable entrant in the primary next time around, the going isn't likely to be much easier in 2012.

Meanwhile, Huckabee won only 8 percent of non-evangelical voters, which is getting into Ron Paul territory. Could Huckabee make inroads with this group instead? He'll probably have a larger media profile in 2012 than he did last year, which could help to make up for what might be chronic deficiencies in fundraising and establishment support. But this is likely to be a tricky road to navigate: the Republicans, so far, seem more inclined to play up their fiscal conservatism than their social conservatism, and Huckabee is swimming in somewhat the opposite direction.

Some months ago, I had a smart Republican strategist tell me that he thought that Huckabee might skip 2012 to focus on 2016 instead. Since that time, 2012 has started to look a bit more winnable for the Republicans. But it nevertheless might be tough for Huckabee to squeeze out enough votes with Palin competing on his right and Romney and some Charlie Crist alternative on his left (if he's smart, Romney will run somewhat to the left, especially if Palin enters, endeavoring to pick up big delegate prizes in some winner-take-all states like California).

Huckabee is not like Jackson in this way: there are circumstances where one can at least imagine him being his party's nominee, which was probably never the case for Jackson. But I'm not sure if those circumstances are shaping up all that well for him in 2012. Moreover, I suspect any Republican candidate who runs and loses for the second time in 2012 (this would include Palin, since she was on John McCain's ticket, as well as Romney and Huckabee) will be severely damaged going forward and will risk being tarred with perennial candidate label so often applied to folks like John Edwards (as well as to Jackson himself). So it might be indeed be smart for Huckabee to go into political hibernation in 2012 and hope that Romney and Palin have managed to eliminate themselves, or one another, once's he's woken up.

37 comments

Tony C. said...

Democrats will be glad to see Huckabee run, and Palin, and Romney. The Republican party has a deep fissure, and no matter who wins the primary about 40% of the Republicans are turned off by the winner. That gets Obama re-elected.

Independents won't vote for Huckabee or Palin. Either of them appeal to 40% of the country, and that's it. To appeal to independents and the young, a fiscal conservative would have to stop talking anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-warming, and isolationist. They would have to distance themselves from the evangelical vote, and that will cost them about 5% which will also lose the election.

It's a lose-lose situation for them.

Juris said...

On the other hand, if Huck wants to set himself up perhaps for 2016, now's maybe a good time for him to take a public stance on a couple of the tough issues of the day: the public option being one of those, gay marriage being another.

There are Evangelicals and others who support the former, in particualr. And a Republican who stops toeing the Club of Rome line in all things might reach toward the broad middle of the voters.

Matt said...

Romney's got to run to the left: He can't win evangelicals, who dominate the conservative wing, so his only shot is to appeal to moderates/independents. He's reinvented himself & his record once, it can't be that hard to do.

Obviously Crist won't run in 2012- he will have just been elected to the Senate, which begs the question, why run for Senate if his presidential campaign would start within a few months of his inaugration in the Senate?

Social conservatism's just a bad card to play-Most Americans don't want the total abortion & gay marriage bans that Huckabee would propose, Obama's not pushing either issue, and fiscal conservatism is much more appealing, given the recession and the huge price tags on healthcare reform & the bailouts.

dailey said...

Strange...it's Palin that I've thought was the republican Jesse Jackson. My mother is dead-center in the evangelical Christian crowd, and I tell you it's not Huckabee that excites those people

Foregone Conclusion said...

I presume that McCain gained 28% of the Evangelical vote in Illinois, not 38%.

Curious that Mormons are counted as 'evangelical' for the purposes of the exit polls. Surely this is the only thing that can explain Romney's crushing victory with this group in Utah, and his win in Nevada? Since the main stumbling block to Romney's victory (apart from appearing to be made out of plastic) was hostility of evangelical Protestants to his faith, that's a tad misleading.

ArcadeFire said...

Any idea how much Huckabee having his own show on Fox, and Newt being on every show on Fox have helped their presidential ambitions?

nova_middle_man said...

Its more do to the fact that Huckabee is a regional (southern candidate)

You will note that Huckabee only wins the evangelical vote when its a southern state.

Since Republicans are more winner take all strange as it may seems it usually comes down to who is winning in the traditional blue states (New York, Illinois New Jersey,) Those states have much more delegates than the southern states.

Brian said...

You can be a cross-over candidate or you can be a religious right/evangelical candidate, but unless Huckabee can bend the time-space continuum, he can't be both.

Independents have little tolerance for the extreme viewpoints of the evangelicals and evangelicals are too busy protecting the godless independents from Satan.

MXH said...

There are non-'evangelicals' left in the republican party?

Leonard said...

I hope I'm not the only one who finds that 'shopped graphic weirdly disturbing.

Tanystropheus said...

Mike Huckabee + Jesse Jackson = Billy Dee Williams, apparently.

DK Fennell said...

"Evangelical" seems to me to be a misleading demographic category. It includes those who are theologically evangelist-oriented, which includes sizeable groups who don't participate at all in politics (e.g., Jehovah Witnesses) as well as those with a social-activist bent. Any group that includes Jimmy Carter, John Anderson and Ronald Reagan isn't really meaningful as an ideological group. But the term, as used in polls, also includes those who have no relation to religion, but who call themselves that to pollsters because that's where their political impulses cluster in pollster categories. Most probably regard themselves religously as "evangelical" even though large numbers never worship, and as countless wits have pointed out, their beliefs bear no relation to the texts upon which their "religion" is based.

The real political group is not "evangelical" but rather "rage thinkers." They will go out of their way to avoid toll roads, because their taxes have already "paid" for "free" roads. They are against abortions because they believe women should "pay" for their "looseness." They believe that educated people are "elites" who are "coddled." They espouse outrageous opinions on guns, taxes, "foreigners," etc. mainly to assert their otherwise insignificant personality.

It is this subset of "evangelical" that is Palin's core. It would be the core of any proto-fascist who generates a sufficient media profile to rally a following. It is this group that could care less about Huckabee, who simply tries too hard to appear reasonable for their taste.

Amanda said...

Foregone Conclusion, I'm not sure that Mormons are counted as evangelical in these exit polls. If you look at the second column, evangelical Protestants made up only 24% of the Republican electorate in Nevada, and 10% in Utah. I'm not sure how religious affiliation breaks down in Nevada, but the very low number in Utah implies to me that Mormons are NOT part of the evangelical group.

Peter said...

Dailey is right. I have a fair number of evangelicals in my family, and they like Huckabee well enough, but he's not quite the one-note firebreather that Palin is, and so he doesn't excite them nearly as much. When they look at Palin, they see someone who they can rely upon to attack and ridicule and marginalize the liberals, and when they look at Huckabee, they see someone who is more prone to smiling and making a joke or a self-deprecating remark as a way of neutralizing a divisive situation.

joel said...

The GOP is doomed in 2012 unless the country is a total disaster and then a Palin or Huckabee still couldn`t win.
I just don`t see a president in any of the potential GOP candididates. My guess is the really serious people will write off 2012 and get ready for 2016 when a republican may have a decent chance.
I saw an interesting piece of data that McCain carried 58% of the white vote and it will take a GOP candidate carrying 66% of the white vote to win the popular vote in 2012.
Seems to me unless the party moderates to include hispanics and a few more black voters it is pretty much doomed at the presidential level.If voter turnout is good it is almost impossible for the republicans to win a national election.

Brian said...

The number of kids turning 18 each year that will register & vote + the number of voting senior citizens that pass away each year = Annual Erosion of the Evangelical Base

Simple fact: Gay marriage & abortion rights are non-issues for teen/youth voters. By 2012 or 2016, opposition to gay marriage will look as dated as a Members Only jacket & abortion rights will be enforced by evangelicals solely by murdering doctors, not at the voting booth.

beavis said...

Obviously Crist won't run in 2012- he will have just been elected to the Senate, which begs the question, why run for Senate if his presidential campaign would start within a few months of his inaugration in the Senate?

He must understand that no republican stands a chance in 2012, and is betting that 2016 might be more friendly to him.

george kennan said...

Disagree about "perennial candidate" label. Bob Dole was a losing VP nominee and twice losing primary candidate before winning the nomination. There's little evidence of damage.

But I'm keeping an eye on Tim Pawlenty who seems like he appeals to non-evangelical fiscal conservatives but also, as an evangelical himself, to them. Just as Obama appealed to both blacks and Reagan Democrats. T Paw could be the white, soporific Obama.

Monkey said...

I agree with dailey and Peter. I think Palin is much more likely to be a "Jesse Jackson" of the Reb. party than Huck would be. One-issue voters -- gun rights, pro-life, anti-immigration -- are more likely to trust her on these issues than the Hucks and Romneys. She gives them the red meat that they want. Frankly, the danger for the Rebs is that with the moderate side of the party eroding, if there is a moderate split, she could get the nomination. All she needs is a manager who knows the biz that she will trust. I don't think she can win a general, but underestimate her appeal to the right at your peril.

loner said...

My best guess at this early, early date is that Jeb Bush will insert himself into the process in early 2011 and that the GOP will nominate him as the least objectionable of the contenders when all is said and done. Same old, same old for at least one more cycle.

clarkejeffrey said...

Is California winner take all this time for the Republicans?

It wasn't last time....

Adam said...

Getting to the topic at hand, I don't see a viable path for Huckabee. Palin is going to cannibalize his support and I just don't see him winning the delegate-rich states of NY, CA, MA, IL, NJ. It's a cultural thing. He just isn't going to mesh well in that environment.

Romney has a much better shot.

Adam said...

CA is winner take all according to which candidate wins each congressional district.

Robert A. George said...

Giving Huckabee a little credit: The man was governor of a semi-swing state -- Arkansas -- for 10 1/2 years. The reason Jackson was never considered serious for the Democratic nomination wasn't just because he was black: It was because he had never run for any office anywhere. Huckabee has a lot to do to convince more of the economic conservatives to take him seriously, but don't underestimate the fact that he comes across as "likeable" -- not "scary" like Pat Robertson back in the day.

Check out his TV show (which has had a more interesting cross-section of guests than any other show on Fox or MSNBC). I wouldn't rule him out yet.

Matt said...

I wanna see Rudy run again.

If he doubles his spending, maybe he'll double his delegate count. That would be so cool.

(Note: I'm not the Matt who posted elsewhere in this thread. I've gone to Google Groups and tried to change my profile to give me a unique name, rather than just another Matt...but I'm not nearly smart enough to figure it out.)

Adam said...

Rudy isn't going to run again. He's never going to win as a pro-choice Yankee among those farmers in Iowa and conservatives in South Carolina. And Romney will beat him in New Hampshire. If he's 0 for 3 in the early states he'll lose - by a lot. just like last time. He knows it. He won't run again.

Mike in Maryland said...

Nate wrote...
Moreover, I suspect any Republican candidate who runs and loses for the second time in 2012 (this would include Palin, since she was on John McCain's ticket, as well as Romney and Huckabee) will be severely damaged going forward and will risk being tarred with perennial candidate label so often applied to folks like John Edwards (as well as to Jackson himself).

Nate forgets probably the quintessential 'perennial' candidate of the GOOPers themselves - Harold Stassen.

His campaigns included:

- Dakota County (Minnesota) District Attorney in 1930 and 1934 (winning both times);

- Governor of Minnesota in 1938, '40, '42 (all successful campaigns), 1982 (unsuccessful);

- Republican Party nomination for President in 1944, 1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992 (all unsuccessful);

- Republican primary for Governor of Pennsylvania, 1958 and 1966;

- Philadelphia mayoral election, 1959;

- Republican primary for the United States Senate from Minnesota, 1978;

- Minnesota's 4th congressional district, 1986;

- Republican primary for the United States Senate from Minnesota, 1994.

I believe that is 22 runs, five of which were successful.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

jbday said...

Patrick Ruffini had a very good post on Hugh Hewitt's blog about Romney's failure to win the nomination in 2008. http://townhall.com/blog/g/67c2c5d5-dd6e-4bfd-9666-a16d97ec9644

In essence, while Romney said all the right things to win the nomination, his style was less authentic than McCain and Huckabee. I agree with Michael Barone, Romney has to be himself to win the nomination in 2008.

With no McCain and no Giuliani, Romney can very easily be the candidate of socially moderate, Chamber of Commerce conservatives.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Unfortunately, those "one-issue" voters who support our laws are screwed.

Palin basically echoed McCain when it came time to support our laws:

24ahead.com/blog/archives/008208.html

As for Huck, his position on our laws would make a Dem jealous. Why, he went as far as helping a foreign government establish yet another profit center inside our country.

Nick said...

The graphic sort of looks like Will Smith.

sam' said...

The way the GOP allocates delegates over-weights Huckabee states -- for instance, Georgia has more dels than Pennsylvania, South Carolina more than Massachusetts. This may give him a better chance than '88-era Jackson.

russell said...

if barone thinks that huck can get past sarah by appealing to "moderates" during the primary, i disagree...sarah is red meat for the 'thumpers and the moderates [the few left] are hopelessly outnumbered

Tony C. said...

russell: Yeah that is basically their problem. People will vote for the candidate they love, and all their potential candidates (Palin, Huckabee, Romney) polarize both independents and their own party, and in different ways in different areas.

Ultimately somebody will win the nomination; but if it is any of these polarizing figures the Republicans will lose the election.

They need a leader. They need somebody to figure out how to barely win the Republican nomination, throwing the most rabid bible thumpers under the bus (to Sarah and Huck) in a way that lets them gain more than that loss with independents in the general election.

The thing is, if you dump the rabid crowd they won't go vote for the liberal Democrat in the general. Some of them just won't vote in the general at all, and the rest will vote for you anyway.

A Republican could refuse to throw that anti-gay, bible thumping red meat to the 25% of the population that wants it, and still get about 75% of their vote. If they ever understand that then they can maneuver to take about 75% of the independents, and then the Dems are in trouble.

Marcos El Malo said...

I agree with the other commenters that finger Palin as being the most like Jesse Jackson. She has great appeal among the new culture of victims that is taking root in some branches of the GOP, just as Jackson did amongst the lefties. And while Sarah does not have Jesse's rhyming ability, she demonstrates the same shallowness when she speaks.

I don't think Huckabee has a snowflakes chance in hell of getting a nomination, but he might get picked as the VP candidate by whomever gets the nomination. (And if he were to be elected VP, then he might get the nomination after 8 years.)

John said...

"With no McCain and no Giuliani, Romney can very easily be the candidate of socially moderate, Chamber of Commerce conservatives."

He's always been conservative. He's a Mormon father of five boys clean as a whistle. I firmly believe Romney is a true fiscal and social conservative. He may have to run a bit to the libertarian side in the race though.

I cannot stand Palin OR Huckabee, even though I am conservative. Huckabee is a sleazy self-righteous asshole, who never seemed especially conservative to me. Palin is corrupt, dumb and never knew her place.

More young are prolife than older age groups. But I will admit the fags have controlled the media narrative on issues like gay marriage, and that's now affecting the beliefs of our young people.

Mike in Maryland said...

John said...
I will admit the fags

Hey John?

If you think you can get away with calling people by school-yard names, such as saying 'fags', then I presume you don't mind if I call you a Neo-Nazi.

You don't mind that term, do you?

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Nick said...

Srsly, how dare those fags infect our children with notions of "acceptance" and "equality." Bah!