Mike Huckabee and the schism of doom

Thomas Edsall breaks down the dynamic of the GOP race:

As the pared-down field of presidential candidates returns to battle today in preparation for next Tuesday's primary, the GOP faces the prospect of two struggles: one, an intra-party conflict to determine who is going to be the Wall Street/national defense establishment candidate; and, two, a civil war in which the winner of the first conflict takes on Mike Huckabee, the Iowa victor who is leading a right-populist/evangelical insurgency.

The initial GOP contest is to determine whether John McCain, leader of the national defense wing, will defeat Mitt Romney, who now carries the mantle of anti-tax, economic conservatives, to become the overall choice of the party's mainstream - or whether Rudy Giuliani will stage an improbable comeback. [Or Fred Thompson! -ed.]

Whoever takes the New Hampshire Republican contest on January 8 will face what is likely to be a far more divisive challenge from Huckabee in the next round of primary and caucus states. This fight threatens to fracture the Republican party - recalling the schism engendered by the 1964 Rockefeller-Goldwater battle.

It sounds like Edsall thinks the McCain/Romney/Giuliani/Thompson battle -- the fight to become the anti-Huckabee -- will be settled in New Hampshire. I don't think that's at all realistic. New Hampshire might send one or two of those guys down a path where they're out of the race by the end of the month, but it's hard to believe there won't be at least two anti-Huckabees still alive and kicking by the time Super Duper Tuesday (February 5) rolls around.

Really, though, that only serves to underscore Edsall's larger point. A deep and lengthy Huckabee-vs.-the-establishment schism would be potentially devastating for the party -- especially if, as I expect, Barack Obama has the Democratic nomination wrapped up by the end of Super Duper Tuesday. And if the Republican "establishment" isn't able to rally around a single standard-bearer, even after February 5 -- if, say, McCain and Thompson both remain viable on into February and March -- the allocation of delegates could be such that the GOP's civil war continues right up until the convention in September, which would mean the Dems would have a presumptive nominee for seven months while the Republicans continue to fight among themselves. The GOP leadership is probably disciplined enough to prevent that from happening, but it's certainly not impossible.

(Hat tip: Matthew Yglesias, via InstaPundit.) More from Edsall after the jump.

[T]he immediate consequence of Huckabee's crushing nine-point defeat of Romney in Iowa has been to give a major boost in New Hampshire to John McCain, the "maverick" libertarian-authoritarian who has been vying for the lead among voters in this state. For many in the establishment-wing of the GOP, Romney's failure to win Iowa after spending record sums there -- a loss stemming in part from voter perception that he is a moderate running in conservative wolves' clothing -- means that McCain is now very likely to become the banner carrier for the party's mainstream.

McCain's rise is an uncomfortable development for social-values voters; for those opposed to immigration; for those critical of McCain's support for campaign finance reform; and for those disturbed by his votes against Bush's tax cuts.

In the longer term, however, McCain's difficulties with these factions are minor compared to the dangers posed by Huckabee's explicitly populist challenge to the authority of the Republican Party's power brokers.

Huckabee has demonstrated a willingness to defy party leaders, whom he dismissed as a "wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street," a statement that goes beyond heresy to apostasy. Moreover, he has used that message to turn what had been a loyal Republican constituency -- white evangelicals -- into a rebel force.

Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, the GOP has successfully avoided the divisive internal conflict that debilitated the Democrats through much of the past four decades, subordinating the inherent tensions between values-oriented Christian voters, segregationists, sexual traditionalists, those opposed to womens' rights, and market-oriented pro-business Republicans under a common goal of opposing intrusion by the federal government.

The Huckabee candidacy has the potential to tear the strained "big tent" asunder.

* * *

The GOP establishment -- Republicans who run the party apparatus - now faces a dilemma. The ideal outcome for this interest group would be to have the contest turn into a battle between Romney and McCain, with Huckabee slowly pushed aside.

The problem is that if the support of party regulars remains split between McCain and Romney, Huckabee's bid remains credible, and likely to be significantly enhanced in the latter half of January when the primary struggle heads away from the North to South Carolina and Florida, two states that Huckabee could win.

The challenge Huckabee represents is reflected in his fights with the GOP's leading anti-tax organization, the Club for Growth, which the former Arkansas Governor has dismissed as the "Club for Greed."

If the Republican presidential nomination turns into a McCain versus Huckabee contest, the Club for Growth would face the repugnant reality of having to choose between Huckabee, whom the Club calls "a habitual tax hiker," and McCain, whose "overall record is tainted by a marked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom," according to the Club.

New Hampshire, by all accounts, will be one of Huckabee's weakest states, with a relatively small fundamentalist-evangelical community. The states that follow New Hampshire - Michigan, South Carolina and Florida - are far more attractive for his Christian-based candidacy, especially insofar as his religiosity is compatible with the positions of mainstream and even left-liberal denominations.

Michigan will be hard for Huckabee to win, but in 1988, televangelist Marion (Pat) Robertson scored second in the state's caucus, and the Christian right is very active in the state. Huckabee has already shown strength in Florida and South Carolina polls.

Comments

[Joe Loy]

Yes.

I can't tell for sure whether you meant your editorial interpolation seriously but I Think you did & if you didn't you Should have :) ~

...or whether Rudy Giuliani will stage an improbable comeback. [Or Fred Thompson! -ed.]

Seems to me that the Conservative Establishment's best Stop-the-Huckster strategy now is to ditch not Only the reptilian Romney :) BUT ALSO the mercurial & maverickian McCain :}; AND THEN ~ the crossdressing Rudy G. being way too New Yawwk for the assignment ~ to officially proclaim that Red Nation turns its Lonely eyes to: Fred. ;>

No, really. Apart from the charismatic Duncan Hunter :), Thompson is easily the Least Inauthentic Conservative ;> in the contest. Thus, bolstered by the reconfigured unified blessing of the GOP Powers-that-Be, he is the best bet to halt Huckabee where he Lives, namely in the delegate-laden South and the Great Plains ~

...And beat the cheapskate, blatherskite,
Populistic, anarchistic,
Deacon- desperado.

Apologies to Vachel Lindsay :)

[JD]

those opposed to womens' rights,

Give me a break.

[JD]

On an actual note of content, Nominee Huckabee would get crushed by Obama*. I say that as an Iowan who has watched this race closely and seen both candidates in person.

*after the first series of debates in history that completely ignore foreign policy, because neither talk about it much.

[Brendan Loy]

I agree with both of your points, JD: the "opposed to women's rights" line was totally uncalled-for and detracted from an otherwise cogent analysis; and Obama would crush Huckabee.

[Brian Foster]

Two thoughts --

First, I am not convinced that it benefits the Dems and hurts the GOP if the Dems know their nominee months in advance of the GOP. As the GOP contest continues to lead newscasts and sell newspapers (whatever those are), the Dem nominee fades in prominence. And/or, the GOP contenders are all united in saying that no matter who eventually wins, they all agree that Obama (presumably) is bad news. Not to mention, it certainly didn't hurt Santos in 2006, notwithstanding the fact that he emerged from a splintered convention while Vinick had several months to consolidate his lead. (Granted, San Andreo was a race-changer, but still.)

Second, I think if the past two months have taught us anything, it is this: underestimate Mike Huckabee at your peril. (And I say that as a decidedly anti-Huckabee Republican.

[Brian Foster]

)

[Joe Loy]

...but That aside, herewith my GOP predictions for MegaBiggaFattaTuesday :) ~ assuming that all candidates named below are Still In on Feb. 5, which I believe they Will be with the possible-to-probable exception of the herpetological Mitt Romney ;} ~ AND also assuming that the Republican Biggiewigs (aka, the RightStuffies :) have NOT (yet) followed my Above recommendation to Anoint the folksy & phlegmatic Fred. [Who, btw, will Still be In precisely to Patiently await said overdue epiphany. :]

The following specifies First-Place-finishers (or, as the MSM will inexactly designate them, "winners") Only. The Feb. 5 roster of States, and their Total Pledged Delegates in parentheses, is per the AP Primary Tracker which can be clicked upon here halfway down the page on the left side. / NOTE: I don't know which states are Winner-Take-All-Pledged-Delegates and which are Not; but I'm told (to my Surprise) by a Republican Rules expert that Nationally, most are NOT, instead allocating delegates in some sort of very Approximate proportion to Something-or-other, such formulae varying widely by State, of course :). [God how I love my country. :]

And so, with those Provisoes, Caveats, Disclaimers, Weaseltunnels, and other Wiggle Rooms, I give you: FEB. 5 ~

Thompson:
Tennessee (55)

Romney:
Massachusetts (43)
Utah (36)
Montana* (25)
Colorado* (43)
[*It's my understanding that these Mountain states, like Wyoming yesterday which Mitt Owned, have GOP Caucuses, not Primaries. / Utah has a Primary but that's OK, Sauron doesn't Need the lowturnout Stealth advantage in Mordor itself ;]

Giuliani:
New York (101)
New Jersey (52)
Connecticut (27)
Delaware (18)

McCain
Alaska (26) [Ron Paul a strong 2nd ;]
Arizona (53)
California (170)

Huckabee:
Illinois (57)
Minnesota (38)
North Dakota (26)
Missouri (58)
Oklahoma (38)
Arkansas (31)
Alabama (45)
Georgia (72)
West Virginia (27)

NOTE: If (as deemed Plausible above :) Mitt has gone away Miffed before Feb. 5, then Rudy inherits Massachusetts, General John conquers Montana & Colorado, and Utah ~ snubbing Romney's Assassin from Arizona and eschewing both the Arkansan Pastor & the secularistical Pope of NYC ~ plumps for Good Ol' Fred :).

The Republican Convention is in early September. / Gonna be Tons o' Fun. :>

[Joe Loy]

ASSUMING an Essentially 2-way race (i.e. no Big 3rd option to drain GOP votes), Obama would beat Huckabee but not by the Landslide you guys may be presuming. Most (if not All) of the Old Confederacy & Border states would hold for the Republicans, albeit by Reduced margins; and the Plains & Mountain West mostly stay in the fold as well. / That's about All though.

[sandy underpants]

Is Thompson really gonna stay in this long enough to win Tennessee? Last night, after Ron Paul explained how inflation, the war, the value of the dollar, and oil prices are all tied together and how to make things better for Americans, Fred Thompson tried to brush off the very concise explanation like it was nonsensical babble. It really exposed Thompson for the senile old fool he is, not to say anyone else on stage outside of Ron Paul seemed to have a clue about economics either, but is there anyone that believes Thompson doesn't have his head totally up his ass? Acting like a politician and making decisions are completely different.

[Brendan Loy]

Obama 359, Huckabee 179.

Huckabee wins:

Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming

Major red/blue upsets: I'm giving Obama Virginia (54-45 Bush in 2004), Colorado (52-47 Bush) and Arizona (55-44).

Even if I'm wrong about those, however, it's still 327-211 Obama.

[Brendan Loy]

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama does even better than my 359-179 prediction. I could see Obama possibly winning Kentucky, North Carolina (especially if it's an Obama-Edwards ticket), Tennessee and West Virginia. I assume Indiana is still solid-red despite the proximity of Obama's home state. That said, I wouldn't be totally stunned if Huckabee -- lacking any support from the intellectual right -- collapses completely under the weight of Democratic attacks, and you start seeing even the reddest of red states go blue. There are only so many hard-core evangelical voters, even in the South and West. If the economic and security conservatives stay home or defect to Obama en masse, Huckabee will be hard-pressed to hold onto even the states that should be automatic. But it really depends on how the campaign unfolds. I am expecting a wave of momentum for Obama that will build and build. Even if I'm wrong about that, I think 327-211 is about the best-case scenario for Huck, barring some sort of massive Obama gaffe.

[gahrie]

The Republican Party can't nominate Huckabee. If Huckabee is leading into the republican convention there will be a revolt and a brokered convention.

Those of you counting Thompson out are in for a big surprise I think...

"Last night, after Ron Paul explained how inflation, the war, the value of the dollar, and oil prices are all tied together and how to make things better for Americans, Fred Thompson tried to brush off the very concise explanation like it was nonsensical babble. It really exposed Thompson for the senile old fool he is, not to say anyone else on stage outside of Ron Paul seemed to have a clue about economics either, but is there anyone that believes Thompson doesn't have his head totally up his ass?"

Is there anyone that believes sandy underpants doesn't have his head totally up his ass

[Derek]

Brendan, as I cited earlier, Huckabee currently holds a one-point lead over Obama in New Mexico, a two-point lead over Obama in Missouri, and trails by one in Ohio. It's absolutely silly to make the prediction you've made without making some serious future extrapolations to explain why these polls aren't indicative of a much closer race than you anticipate. If anything, Obama has potentially more to lose from exposure to his actual policy positions than Huckabee, who's far more moderate.

[Joe Mama]

Powerline posted comments on Huckabee's campaign from Mark Falcoff, resident scholar emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute and advisor to Romney's campaign. Interesting stuff:

It’s been a long time in coming. For years the Republicans have depended on evangelical voters to assure them control of the White House and at least a fighting representation in both houses of Congress. Sooner or later their most reliable, most motivated constituency would want more than just verbal assurances of support or even votes on issues of importance—abortion, gays in the military, and so forth. Eventually evangelicals would want a president of their own.

The best metaphor is that of the blacks in the Democratic party. For years, nay, for decades, they have been its most reliable constituency, essential to winning states rich in electoral votes in presidential races. Of course the Democrats haven’t always won these elections, mainly because they have fielded charmless candidates like Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, or John Kerry. But they wouldn’t have come as close as they did, particularly in 2000 and 2004, if it weren’t for that reliable Afro-American vote.

This was precisely what led Jesse Jackson to seek the Democratic nomination in 1984. Given the peculiarities of our primary politics, this wasn’t as outlandish a proposition as it might seem in retrospect. Although he didn’t win the Iowa caucuses, Jackson did go on to win primaries in South Carolina, Louisiana (where most white Democrats failed to go to the polls, since they were planning to vote for President Reagan anyway) and Michigan (where less than two percent of the registered Democrats actually bothered to vote—one can easily discern which two percent it was). The next big contest was in New York State. In the runup to that event great was the panic in establishment Democratic ranks. What if Jackson won New York? Could they deny him the nomination? Fortunately for the party this eventuality never materialized, although this didn’t stop Jackson from insisting that as the winner of the second largest basket of primary delegates he should at least be the vice presidential nominee. The Democrats wouldn’t go for this either. They wanted votes from Jackson supporters, but they knew perfectly well that the reverend’s presence on the ticket would be political suicide. Black voters had no choice but to go back to being what they’ve always been—a major but not defining constituency of the Democratic party. What makes the Obama phenomenon particularly intriguing is that, although technically black, he is certainly not a “black candidate” in the sense in which Jackson was. Indeed, at this writing Hillary Clinton is still the first choice of most African-American voters.

With Mike Huckabee’s victory in Iowa, however, the Republican party is now entering what might be called its Jesse Jackson moment.

If Huckabee goes on to win more primaries he will have a reasonable claim to the nomination. He may, of course, lose New Hampshire, New York, California and Michigan. But let’s suppose that he manages to win enough primaries in the southern and border states to make the results in those three states irrelevant. It’s all a question of numbers. In spite of itself, the party might end up with him as its nominee, and with it, heading down the shortest road to disaster since the Goldwater debacle of 1964.

Make no mistake about it: an electoral defeat of these dimensions would represent a major watershed in the history of the Republican party. It would be faced with only two possible roads forward. One is to become the party of the religious right, a sectarian agglomeration somewhat like the small ethnic parties in inter-war Europe, perhaps capable of holding some governorships and seats in Congress but never again competitive in a presidential election. The other would be to cut itself free from the religious right and seek to appeal to the wide and growing tranche of independent voters who are socially liberal but economically conservative. In that case the Republican party would gradually resemble some of the “liberal” (that is, conservative) parties who periodically win national elections in Western Europe or Canada. These parties are friendly to market-based solutions to economic problems—that is, they are broadly libertarian.

Think this is impossible? Think again. The business of politicians is first and foremost to get elected, not to preach sermons. A Huckabee nomination would not merely assure a Democratic presidential victory but gains in both houses and a Supreme Court packed with justices somewhat resembling Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But the news is worse than that: even a Huckabee victory in the race to the White House (as difficult as it may be to imagine at this point) would also toll the death kneel of the Republican party as we have known it. Indeed, as recent opposition research has shown, none of the candidates is as far from the legacy of Ronald Reagan—either in domestic or foreign policy--as the former governor of Arkansas. As Mark Steyn has properly stated it, the choice between Huckabee and some Democrat would be a choice between the Religious Left and the Secular Left. Evangelicals—many of them my neighbors and friends--need to take note. The peril is great and it is near.

[Brendan Loy]

Derek, I believe that general-election polls are almost completely meaningless at this point in the race. Virtually no one who isn't an Iowa resident, a New Hampshire resident, or a political junkie is actually paying attention to the candidates at this point, so the polls simply reflect the public's general 50-50 split between the two parties. They say next to nothing about Obama or Huckabee per se, because the public has only the vaguest impressions of those candidates right now. It is my belief that once the public starts paying attention, and gets to know these candidates, Obama's political and rhetorical skill, combined with Huckabee's toxic mixture of social policies that are anathema to liberals and fiscal/regulatory policies that are anathema to conservatives (except social conservatives who don't care about anything but social issues), will create a landslide dynamic. That dynamic doesn't exist yet (no dynamic exists yet), but I believe that it will come into existence in due course. Current polls cannot and do not contradict this belief. My opinion may ultimately be proven wrong, but it is by no means "absolutely silly."

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. You want me to base my predictions on "serious future extrapolations" from current polls, and assert that they are "absolutely silly" otherwise. Such a statement is itself uncommonly silly. Do you really believe that general-election predictions, made 10 months in advance, should only be taken seriously if they are based on "extrapolations" from contemporaneous opinion polls? Did you even consider the possibility that some people might believe that such meaningless polls give us nothing to "extrapolate" from? As far as I'm concerned, these polls, just like the ones showing Howard Dean leading President Bush at this time in 2004 (pre-Scream), signify nothing. They are essentially garbage data. I have eyes and ears, and I base my predictions on my observations of the candidates. I believe that's a far firmer basis than what a bunch of potential voters in Ohio told a pollster over the Christmas holidays of the year preceding the election.

[gahrie]

Joe Mama's post at 8:16 lays out some of the reasons why Huckabee will never be allowed to be the Republican Party's nominee.

And just as an aside, to string the evangelical/Black analogy further...where exactly are the evangelicals going to go if they feel insulted by the way Huckabee is going to be treated?

[Brian Foster]

In fairness, Derek, Brendan put three of your five cited states in the Huckabee column. And your source shows Obama leading Huckabee in ten other states, including 51-42 in Virginia, 52-36 in Wisconsin, and 52-39 in Iowa. The latter two, of course, being extremely close states in the past two elections, and the former -- as Brendan notes -- being normally reliably GOP.

Of course, as Brendan also notes, all these surveys were taken back in December (results reported on the 20th, or earlier), which means these numbers do not reflect the fact that Huckabee and Obama won the Iowa caucuses. If anything, I would expect that information favors Huckabee, as Obama has been the darling of the media all year (if not since the 2004 convention) whereas nobody had heard of Huckabee until two months ago.

Anyway, I think both of y'all are right. These polls are meaningless, but Huckabee-Obama will be no landslide.

And it certainly would not be the "death kneel" [sic] of the Republican Party.

We survived W. We can survive H.

[tennismama]

Huckabee is my man. Will not vote for Romney or the Democratic nominee no matter what. I think the Republicans are in trouble although when Huckabee gets the nomination, it won't be a death knell if the Republicans unite behind him. How could you vote for the Democrat if Republican ideals are so important to you? I think people don't like him because he's not ashamed of his faith. That says more about you than about him.

[Brendan Loy]

How could you vote for the Democrat if Republican ideals are so important to you?

Some conservatives -- fiscal conservatives, libertarian-ish conservatives, and national-security conservatives, mind you, not pure social conservatives -- would argue that if "Republican ideals" are important to you, you can't possibly vote for Huckabee, again unless we're talking purely about social issues. And if it's a choice between two tax-raising, free-spending, nanny-stating candidates with Carteresque foreign policies, some Republicans might prefer the Democrat because, well, neither option upholds the "Republican ideals [that] are so important to [them]," and if America is going to elect a tax-and-spend liberal, better that he have a "(D)" next to his name instead of an "(R)", so that at least the Republicans can blame the donkeys for what happens on his watch and run somebody against him in 2012.

That's just one possible answer to the question "How could you vote for the Democrat if Republican ideals are so important to you?" I'm sure there are others.