McCain-Huckabee?
It’s getting awfully hard to avoid the conclusion that Mike Huckabee is angling for the VP job in a McCain administration:
Mike Huckabee brushed off predictions Thursday that he would drop out of the Republican presidential nominating contest, but dropped new hints that he’d prefer John McCain to Mitt Romney as the party’s eventual pick.Huckabee, who hasn’t won a caucus or primary since Iowa, emphatically dismissed the suggestion that the GOP race was a two-man contest, with Rudy Giuliani out of it and questions about whether he was sticking it out to angle for a running mate spot.“I’m staying in the race because I still think I can win,” he told an enthusiastic audience of about 170 people at a campaign appearance organized by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Club.
“When people say, ‘Why aren’t you going to drop out?’ I look at the two other guys and say, ‘Why don’t they drop out?”‘
Huckabee also was scornful of the idea – apparently from Romney’s camp – that he would siphon votes away from Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and thus help ensure McCain wins the nomination.
“I think it’s pretty desperate when you say a vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for John McCain. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Huckabee,” the former Arkansas governor said. “If Mitt Romney can’t understand how electoral politics works, maybe that explains why he has spent so much money and doesn’t have a lot to show for it.”
Huckabee said his pared-down campaign has generated more bang for the buck than Romney’s, taking another swipe at the former Massachusetts governor: “Look how much money he spent to get the same market share as I did – I would say my message is selling better than his.”
But he had nary a negative word about McCain. Huckabee said he’d gone out of his way to congratulate McCain on his big endorsements from Giuliani and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and joked that McCain should leave some endorsement crumbs for him.
The first point I’d like to make is that people don’t vote for VPs, they vote for the top of the ticket – but let’s play the game. Would Huckabee help or hurt?
He’d help, in the short run, by bringing SOME social conservatives back into the fold (I’m convinced that there are some people who are so far right that, like Ann Coulter, they actually prefer to suffer through eight years of Hillary rather than forgive McCain for his ’sins’). However, Huckabee has very limited appeal outside of conservative, religious Americans – a sizable part of the population, to be sure, but a part of the population that is already far more likely to vote Republican than not. And in the general election, that means Huckabee might actually hurt more than help by turning off moderate independents who might consider giving McCain a chance.
I must admit, however, to not having given much though to who WOULD make a good VP. I’m assuming Giuliani is out…any thoughts from anyone out there?…
UPDATE 9:37 p.m.: Chris Cillizza thinks McCain would choose from Huckabee, Pawlenty, Sanford, and Thune…
Sanford, huh? I had thought he would be a good VP for Rudy, but I figured McCain would lean more toward Lindsey Graham as South Carolinians go.
I had suspected Pawlenty and Huckabee. And maybe Lieberman. At first I was about to say Lieberman wouldn’t help shore up the base, but I wouldn’t be surprised if more self-proclaimed conservatives would be more willing to vote for him than McCain.
As far as I’m aware though, the only thing for which John Thune is known is being elected. Speaking of which I recall hearing Daschle tossed around as a potential VP for Hillary (It would probably Bayh, though).
Lieberman has already taken himself out, I believe…
Never mind — just read the full article and I was clearly confused about Daschle — he’d go with Obama.
I would have guessed the decision would be based primarily on Electoral College math (which is tough for any Republican this year).
Perhaps Governor Crist? (He did really, really help McCain with that endorsement, after all… How “inevitable” would McCain be if he hadn’t won Florida?) He’s popular enough in his state, and McCain has enough cross-over appeal, that Florida could be back in play.
Well, Florida has certainly seemed to loom large in the last two presidential elections…
Crist might be a good pick, depending on how solid Florida looks come summertime (Hillary has the advantage w/ NY ex pats, but McCain’s support among Latinos and military veterans might help). If Florida looks solid, Pawltney might be a somewhat better bet, since he could put McCain over the top in Minnessotta (which hasn’t gone red since 1972) and may even help in Wisconsin, where Bush came awfuly close twice.
As for the ‘08 contenders, the only semi-plausible candidate for McCain is Mitt Romney. My preferences would be for Rudy or Thompson, but McCain’s pick needs to reassure the base and anyone who donated $$ and/or lobbied for Planned Parenthood is a non-starter (plus Thompson really coasted his way through the campaign, which isn’t a good sign). Huckabee would a lousy choice all around — his supporters mostly prefer McCain over Romney anyway (despite what Rush and Hannity believe). Huckabee wouldn’t help McCain where he is weakest — among the elites in the party — and would actually hurt him where he is strongest (national security and spending).
That leaves Romney. Last week I noted how odd it was that he of all people had been elevated to the level of sainthood by the right, but what’s done is done and it would be awfully hard for all those “my way or the highway” folks to claim Romney wasn’t good enough as a VP pick after demanding him at the top of the ticket (Coulter, for one, would probably try anyway, but who cares what she thinks anymore). He offers nothing geographically, his Mormon religion might hurt McCain in the South, and each and ever layoff one of Bain’s subsidiaries ever made will be thrown back in his face, but his wonkishness might help as far as putting together a solid economic recovery plan and in selling to the American People. Personally, I’d rather have Pawltney, but ultimately it would depend on how serious the die hard faction of Romney supporters (50% of those on the internet, so probably 10-25% in the overall population) are about bolting of McCain gets the nod, and we won’t know the answer to that until June.
McCain needs:
1. help with evangelicals
2. a governor with proven skills
3. to win a big,crucial state like Florida
He needs Jeb Bush.
Yes, yes, I know a Bush but if Clinton is the nominee, why not? (I admit it won’t work with Obama)
Some negative impact nationly with moderates but if Clinton is the nominee I don’t think that hurts much. It locks Florida, far more than Crist, and really helps McCain with social conservatives.
Sanford and Thune deliver nothing. McCain will win both states easily.
Pawlenty would help in Minnesota but that is not as important as Florida. McCain does not win without either Florida or Ohio.
If Obama wins the nomination, I wouldn’t be surprised to see McCain pick George Pataki as his running mate. Experience as governor and might put New York in play.
You know Mark, I’m already holding my conservative nose when voting for McCain, I can’t imagine the gymnastics required to allow me to vote McCain-Huckabee!
Peter, there is quite simply no way for the GOP to put New York in play. This is like the last two elections, with Republicans thinking they’ve got a shot in New Jersey. Not going to happen.
I think that’s correct, there aren’t enough conservatives upstate to overtake the NYC/Long Island liberals and those few independents that will vote McCain vs Obama (or Clinton).
Is it likely a Democratic candidate would select McCain as a running mate, in case of a Romney win?
New York has a long history of electing Republicans to statewide office — in addition to Pataki: Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller, and Pat Moynihan, to name a few — so I wouldn’t rule it out –
Lynn, absolutely not…
New York might possibly – possibly, I say – be the slightest bit in play if Obama is the nominee. But in the far more likely scenario of a Hillary Democratic nomination, New York is completely out of the question…
I hear ya Peter, but when was the last time NY went with the GOP for POTUS?
Peter-
Lots of solidly liberal states routinely elect (relatively liberal) Republicans to state office (see Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Pataki (R-NY), Romney (R-MA), Rell (R-CN), and on and on) — voters like to have a choice.
Similarly, lots of solidly conservative states routinely elect (relatively conservative) Democrats to state office (see Sebelius (D-KA), Beshear (D-KY), Easely (D-NC), Bredesen (D-TN), Kaine (D-VA) and on and on) — again, voters like a choice.
There certainly are states that are “turnable” — but New York isn’t remotely one. Micahael Dukakis won only eight states in 1988, and New York was one of them. It’s true that Ronald Reagan won New York both times — but he won 49 states in 1984, and it’s probably been said before, but John McCain’s no Ronald Reagan. (Neither’s Mitt Romney.)
Going with the view that a VP doesn’t help — Dukakis went up one point after Lloyd Bentsen delivered one of the best comeback lines ever seen in a debate — but they can hurt, having Jeb Bush as a vice presidential nominee would annihilate John McCain’s ability to win independents in the general election.
Pat Moynihan was a Democrat. And John McCain is not a liberal. Not going to happen.
Unfortunately, noone paid attention when he was holding a solid second in EVERY national poll. Mitt Romney did not overtake Huckabee in ANY national poll until after the media had been calling it a “two man” race between Romney and McCain for quite awhile. The Pygmalion effect (self-fulfilling prophecy) kicked in, and we now have the “two man” race that the media started. As a devout Huckabee supporter I can tell you that neither my vote, nor most other supporters’ votes that I’m aware of will be cast for Mitt Romney. Romney is neither believable nor likeable, and his baseless attacks on Huckabee alienated the Huckabee voters. Sorry Mitt, I’m voting for Mike on Super Tuesday, and John in the national. McCain/Huckabee ‘08…. I’d LOVE to see it.
Ryan: whoops, you are absolutely correct — Moynihan was a Democrat. My mistake. How embarrassing.
As for Pataki putting New York into play: it’s my story and I’m sticking to it. If it happens, you heard it here first.
I think Aaron (#18) is absolutely correct. Jeb Bush could have cut spending 25% in real dollars, cut taxed by 50%, presided over an economy that grew 8 per cent per year with unemployment below 2 per cent, and left office with an 75% approval rating — and he would STILL be a drag as a VP nominee, because his last name is Bush. Is it fair? Not really — but it is what it is (and, besides, the Bush name helped him get elected Governor in the first place).
There is no evidence that the VP has any negative effect nationaly. All effects are local only. Dif LBJ help JFK any where but Texas?
The Bentsen comparison does not refute my Jeb Bush proposal, it strengens it. Quayle was considered by everyone to be a joke and GW Bush still won rather easily.
Gore went with a pick counting on him being Jewish helping him in Florida and other places. It had zero effect. If Gore picked Sen. Nelson of Florida as his VP, would it have even been close in Florida?
I still submit that Bush delivers Florida and has no net negative.
I think people are being too conventional. Bush = unpopular.
Bob- I’d say Bush is a negative on the GOP ticket *IF* Clinton is the DNC nominee — if only because it prevents the 28 years of “Bushes and Clintons” meme frome working against Clinton.
Somewhat unrelated…
Does anyone else feel like we’re in a wierd game theory model? It feels like McCain would trounce Clinton (all her arguments about experience and toughness come back to haunt her), but lose to Obama (makes McCain look old and unmavericky), and while Romney might beat Obama (making it about executive experience), but lose to Clinton (he’s not a tough enough campaigner — he can’t even handle one smear from McCain!).
If there’s any truth at all to this, the Dems have a big advantage this year — with our winner-take-all delegate system, the GOP will probably pick a candidate on Tuesday. The Dems will likely not decide for another few months. The final Dem voters and the excessive number of “super”delegates will get to pick the Democratic nominee already knowing who the GOP have nominated. Of course, last time they tried to pick the “electable” candidate, they went with John Kerry…
I think Huckabee could make a pretty good “attack dog”/pitchman for McCain. His economic message seems to fit with McCain’s as well. He’s a Southerner and he’s been in a fight with the Clinton machine before. He got a heckuvalot more out of his bucks than Guiliani or Romney.
Huckabee brings in the far right vote without forcing MCain to “go after it” and appear to be compromising his moderate position (which is so appealing to most centrists). I believe that a McCain/Huckabee ticket is a winner for several reasons:
1) Balance (moderate/conservative)
2) Age
3) The “Washinton Insider” + the CEO Governor
4) The stern McCain + the affable Huckabee.
Great choice in my opinion.
3/24/08
Hind sight is a powerful thing. And I would hope that the author of this article is revisiting some of his statements. He omits American Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and a variety of agnostics when referring to main stream conservatives. A number of these people will not vote at all unless McCain picks Huckabee as his VP.
Does America realize that Hispanics and African Americans are not the only minorities here?