What is Huckabee's ceiling against Clinton in the Electoral College?

[JRP1994]

My guess is something like this, on a VERY good day for Huck.

But that his floor could be somewhere around here.......

And I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon of "OMG Hilldawg will win Indiana!!!!!1" but I think that Huckabee's "Uncle Sugar" comment demonstrates a recklessness not dissimilar to Richard Murdoch, and that he COULD lose the Hoosier State.

[IceSpear]

Ceiling:

Huckabee - 281
Clinton - 257

Floor:

Clinton - 402
Huckabee - 136

[Mister Mets]

The ceiling implies that Huckabee avoids serious gaffes, and runs a good campaign in a favorable environment.

If so he'll do as well as any Republican could (with the exception of Christie, who in a best case scenario, could take New Jersey).

In 2012, 85% of voters agreed with the sentiment that Obama cared more about people like them than Romney did. Huckabee could do much better in that category. I could see him articulating a positive vision of government, generally an appealing message.

The problem with Huckabee is that he's a high risk type. He could win the nomination without demonstrating General Election strength. He's a skilled enough politician (and likely to be surrounded by enough minders) that he should be able to avoid Akin style gaffes. But a nomination could still be a disaster. Electorally, his floor is probably McCain in 2008. But he could also hinder the party in other races. It could hurt the House races, to say nothing of Republican incumbents running for Senate in Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Hampshire, especially if any of those become open seats.

[Maxwell]

Huckabee isn't really the type to avoid gaffes: in 2008 he literally said he would re-write the Constitution to contort with God's law.

[Senator Cris]

[Smash255]

The ceiling implies that Huckabee avoids serious gaffes, and runs a good campaign in a favorable environment.

If so he'll do as well as any Republican could (with the exception of Christie, who in a best case scenario, could take New Jersey).

In 2012, 85% of voters agreed with the sentiment that Obama cared more about people like them than Romney did. Huckabee could do much better in that category. I could see him articulating a positive vision of government, generally an appealing message.

The problem with Huckabee is that he's a high risk type. He could win the nomination without demonstrating General Election strength. He's a skilled enough politician (and likely to be surrounded by enough minders) that he should be able to avoid Akin style gaffes. But a nomination could still be a disaster. Electorally, his floor is probably McCain in 2008. But he could also hinder the party in other races. It could hurt the House races, to say nothing of Republican incumbents running for Senate in Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Hampshire, especially if any of those become open seats.

This is way past absurd.  Huckabee is completely unelectable.  His ceiling is Romney 2012 and N.C might be pushing it. 

[Matty]

America is VERY hostile to the south at this point in history, so I highly doubt Huckabee gets above 202 EV. Remember, it is very rare in American politics for a candidate to do well in both the south and the important rust belt.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Huckabee will win all of the Romney states.  I see it quite possible that he could win FL, PA, OH, VA, and CO.  Under those circumstances, he'd win.

Huckabee is a lot like Ronald Reagan; a Governor who's a celebrity.  He's been an Evangelical Pastor, and that helps him work a crowd, but that's enough in the past to where it helps him with the base without hurting him with swing voters who may normally be turned off by an Evangelical candidate.  He's been on TV, and people like him.  He has experience as Governor, and he's had a rest from public life.  He's less scary then a lot of Evangelical types; he'd never make the kind of gaffes that Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock made.  (Those guys were kind of over-serious, dour, and full of themselves, which Huckabee is not.)  He's not really a "movement conservative", but he is (somewhat by default) the leader of the GOP religious conservatives.  He's a dark horse right now, and he's making more money then Reagan made as an after-dinner speaker and doing DEATH VALLEY DAYS, but he is, believe it or not, one of the few top-tier Presidential candidates the GOP actually has.

[Mister Mets]

America is VERY hostile to the south at this point in history, so I highly doubt Huckabee gets above 202 EV. Remember, it is very rare in American politics for a candidate to do well in both the south and the important rust belt.

Not recently.

The South has generally become more Republican. The Rust Belt tends to go to the winner of the presidential election.

Let's look at the last few elections.

In 1980 and 1984 Reagan won the majority of states in both regions in landslides. Papa Bush continued the trend in 1988.

In 1992, Clinton took the rust belt, although the south was essentially a wash. In 1996, Clinton kept the rust belt, and swapped Georgia for Florida.

In 2000 and 2004 Bush essentially won both regions.

In 2008, Obama won the rust belt and McCain won most of the south. Romney would go on to make gains in one rust belt state and one southern state.

[JRP1994]

America is VERY hostile to the south at this point in history, so I highly doubt Huckabee gets above 202 EV. Remember, it is very rare in American politics for a candidate to do well in both the south and the important rust belt.

Not recently.

The South has generally become more Republican. The Rust Belt tends to go to the winner of the presidential election.

Let's look at the last few elections.

In 1980 and 1984 Reagan won the majority of states in both regions in landslides. Papa Bush continued the trend in 1988.

In 1992, Clinton took the rust belt, although the south was essentially a wash. In 1996, Clinton kept the rust belt, and swapped Georgia for Florida.

In 2000 and 2004 Bush essentially won both regions.

In 2008, Obama won the rust belt and McCain won most of the south. Romney would go on to make gains in one rust belt state and one southern state.

In 2000, Bush only won IN and OH. 2004 he only added IA. Lost MN, WI, IL, MI, and PA both times.

[MurrayBannerman]

The ceiling implies that Huckabee avoids serious gaffes, and runs a good campaign in a favorable environment.

If so he'll do as well as any Republican could (with the exception of Christie, who in a best case scenario, could take New Jersey).

In 2012, 85% of voters agreed with the sentiment that Obama cared more about people like them than Romney did. Huckabee could do much better in that category. I could see him articulating a positive vision of government, generally an appealing message.

The problem with Huckabee is that he's a high risk type. He could win the nomination without demonstrating General Election strength. He's a skilled enough politician (and likely to be surrounded by enough minders) that he should be able to avoid Akin style gaffes. But a nomination could still be a disaster. Electorally, his floor is probably McCain in 2008. But he could also hinder the party in other races. It could hurt the House races, to say nothing of Republican incumbents running for Senate in Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Hampshire, especially if any of those become open seats.

This is way past absurd.  Huckabee is completely unelectable.  His ceiling is Romney 2012 and N.C might be pushing it. 

I agree. He's a terrible candidate with no grasp on economic or social issues that we face.

[pbrower2a]

Next week, PPP shows its results from Texas. Being from Arkansas gives one no great advantage in Texas; Bill Clinton lost the state twice. Until PPP results come out for Texas I am going to remain silent about the floor.

Huckabee is close to his ceiling. He gets most of his current exposure on Faux News Channel, which means he gets heavy attention from people on the Right but little from the rest of America. His floor in the popular vote is about 45%, which puts Texas in play for Hillary Clinton.

Ceiling? 56% popular vote following a failed Obama Administration with a economic collapse or a diplomatic/military debacle. That's about how Eisenhower did against Stevenson. In such a case

shows what an Eisenhower-style win in the popular vote would look like for a Republican following a President then reviled as a failure much as Truman was then seen.

407 Huckabee (R)
131 Clinton (D)

with Clinton wins restricted to the extreme in the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast. She still avoids a Carter-style loss because two of the states that she wins are California and New York.
 
 

[Likely Voter]

Assuming trends continue along expectations (ala CBO predictions), then I don't see how Huckabee picks up any Obama 2012 states. Hillary would probably pick up 1 or 2 more states (NC + maybe AZ, MO or GA)

[Randy Bobandy]

Huckabee is about as electable as Santorum.

[Mister Mets]

The ceiling implies that Huckabee avoids serious gaffes, and runs a good campaign in a favorable environment.

If so he'll do as well as any Republican could (with the exception of Christie, who in a best case scenario, could take New Jersey).

In 2012, 85% of voters agreed with the sentiment that Obama cared more about people like them than Romney did. Huckabee could do much better in that category. I could see him articulating a positive vision of government, generally an appealing message.

The problem with Huckabee is that he's a high risk type. He could win the nomination without demonstrating General Election strength. He's a skilled enough politician (and likely to be surrounded by enough minders) that he should be able to avoid Akin style gaffes. But a nomination could still be a disaster. Electorally, his floor is probably McCain in 2008. But he could also hinder the party in other races. It could hurt the House races, to say nothing of Republican incumbents running for Senate in Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Hampshire, especially if any of those become open seats.

This is way past absurd.  Huckabee is completely unelectable.  His ceiling is Romney 2012 and N.C might be pushing it. 

The question asks for his ceiling, not how likely he is to reach it, or to even come close.

His ceiling requires several unlikely things to happen. But a Republican who can convince voters that he cares about people like them can do very well in a General Election. Can being the operative word.

America is VERY hostile to the south at this point in history, so I highly doubt Huckabee gets above 202 EV. Remember, it is very rare in American politics for a candidate to do well in both the south and the important rust belt.

Not recently.

The South has generally become more Republican. The Rust Belt tends to go to the winner of the presidential election.

Let's look at the last few elections.

In 1980 and 1984 Reagan won the majority of states in both regions in landslides. Papa Bush continued the trend in 1988.

In 1992, Clinton took the rust belt, although the south was essentially a wash. In 1996, Clinton kept the rust belt, and swapped Georgia for Florida.

In 2000 and 2004 Bush essentially won both regions.

In 2008, Obama won the rust belt and McCain won most of the south. Romney would go on to make gains in one rust belt state and one southern state.

In 2000, Bush only won IN and OH. 2004 he only added IA. Lost MN, WI, IL, MI, and PA both times.

The wikipedia definition has the rust belt as h Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Indiana, as well as parts of Michigan and Wisconsin. Bush won three of the full rust belt states (Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia.)

[JRP1994]

Huckabee is about as electable as Santorum.

True, but much more likable. Compare this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsH42NzFF2A

To this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxWHCKDPiM

[pbrower2a]

America is VERY hostile to the south at this point in history, so I highly doubt Huckabee gets above 202 EV. Remember, it is very rare in American politics for a candidate to do well in both the south and the important rust belt.

America is hostile as a whole to Southern reactionaries as national candidates. Yankees can vote for Southern moderates -- like Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Jimmy Carter won Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. What they won't go for is someone who exudes the values of the Southern Right.

Does anyone doubt that Yankees would vote for a moderate Southerner? If they can vote for Barack Obama they can vote for some black liberal Governor of Alabama, Louisiana, or Mississippi who has solved many of the problems. But such implies a revival of the New South in which reform trumps race.

It's telling that the only Republican nominee for President to have won Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island together was Dwight Eisenhower -- after Adlai Stevenson found most of his support among Southern agrarians. Ike did badly in the South.

[pbrower2a]

Next This week, PPP shows its results from Texas. Being from Arkansas gives one no great advantage in Texas; Bill Clinton lost the state twice.

Even with a 56-44 split of the popular vote (which is roughly the average of the two Eisenhower wins), Hillary Clinton will not win Texas. Huckabee basically gets most of the states that ever went for Stevenson, Texas, and States that never- never - never vote for a Democratic nominee. In the interest of symmetry, I show an Eisenhower-style win for Hillary Clinton:

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

still does not yet deliver Texas to Hillary Clinton. Huckabee is an excellent cultural fit for the Deep and Mountain South -- and Texas.

The map would be different for Christie.  Georgia and Missouri now look fairly similar in their politics; Arizona will increasingly look more like Colorado than like Texas in politics. Huckabee is a poor-enough match for Ohio that he would put Indiana in play, especially if the Senate seat involves a hot race.


141 Huckabee (R)
397 Clinton (D)