Talk Elections

I think so. This is Willy Horton x100

I think perhaps one of the best signs Huckabee is doomed is that I've not seen a SINGLE news story that's over a page long on this slaying (AP/CNN/etc.) that does not call out Huckabee as being partially responsible while only offering a minute defense of his decision.

The Huckster has been finished. This is just overkill now.

Does this finish him?  No - I don't think so - I think it severely hinders him, and it's one of the main reasons I've always opposed him - he's always had a weak law and order record, but I think he can overcome something like this.  I still don't see him winning anyway though, so I think this is somewhat irrelevant to the big picture - I just don't see Huckabee winning in general.

Probably not.

yep.

If there wasn't this case he could have won the nomination. but there is no way you can look at the GOP nominee that let out a killer from jail and want to vote for him. especially if military and crime are issues...and military decisions will be

I just don't see it hurting him that much if it didn't hurt him that much in 2008.  He had a terrible record with this stuff before.  I don't think he had anything as bad as this, but we'll see.

I'm watching Huckabee on O'Reilly right now - he's saying he wouldn't have granted clemency looking back, but he brought up a mistake in the prosecutors when he committed anothe crime after he was let out that kept him out of jail.  He's trying to push this off on other people.

The party of personal responsibility should nominate him.

When I saw that I got pretty pissed off.

also, "It's a very Republican area, very conservative," Huckabee said, speaking of Midland before his visit. "Anyone who can't get the support of what I call just the salt to the earth type people in West Texas probably isn't going to be elected president." (http://www.mywesttexas.com/articles/2009/11/30/news/top_stories/huckabee_book_tour.txt)

Midland, TX (2008 Republican Primary): McCain 55%, Huckabee 36%

so why was he interested in running, if the salt of the earth Christians rejected him?

And (Midland, TX, 2008 General): McCain 78%, Obama 21%

Why did Obama even run, if he couldn't carry Middle American Midland?

You realize every politician panders to the area they're about to visit, right?

No. Mike Huckabee's voters don't care about law and order issues. The people to be angered/repulsed by this were already angered/repulsed by his belief in creationism and his squirrel-eating.

Yeah, besides he would have had massive problems raising money too and therefore wouldn't have been a serious contender anyway.

So, no Huckabee in 2012.

I like when people think news stories will be relevant for three years.  Most of the country will have forgotten about this by 2010.

Willie Horton was furloughed in June 1986, and went on his crime spree in April 1987.  It was old news by the time of the 1988 campaign, and yet was still very, very relevant.

I feel I'm fairly conscious about the timeline here when I say it will still hurt Huck and that it's a big deal in the GOP primary. No matter how he plays his argument, and indeed, no matter how much I actually will probably agree with Huckabee that this is a failure of Washington state's process more than Arkansas', it's still such a big landmine that I'm not sure if he could win out in a  Republican Primary.  

He could probably defend it better than Dukakis did Willie Horton in the *general* election, but the mailing pieces that would be hitting Iowa households (probably sponsored by Romney's, Palin's or Pawlenty's campaigns, or all of the above), detailing the murders and Huckabee's involvement, while they may be factually correct, they'd just be BRUTAL.

The more and more I think about it, the more I realize how no one would want to be Huck's campaign manager now.

In 2016 he might have a shot, but 2012 is too soon, just like Micheal Jackson child molesting jokes.  

Remember, no matter how intellectually defensible a position may be, what matters is whether or not it will sell.  Actually, you should remember that throughout this week as Obama increases troops in Afghanistan and the health care bill moves forward etc.

     This probably won't hurt him among his base. It will hurt him badly among the rest of the population, but there's plenty of negative stuff to hammer in on out there. Just look at how his numbers declined after Iowa, compared to his meteoric rise beforehand; he does best when he can rely on his charisma & not worry about the skeletons in his closet getting exposed. That only works when you're not considered a major threat, as he was before Iowa.

     He'll likely perform at close to the same level he did in 2008 if he can get a corner on his 2008 base, but he'll probably do worse if Palin runs too. However, I felt the same way before this latest story; this just further guarantees that he'll never find significant success beyond his religious right base..

The other GOP candidates will keep reminding people.

If his comments on AIDS didn't doom him, I don't see how this could.

In reality, yes.

His views on AIDS were pretty representative of his base.  This is not.

I think Huckabee was well set-up for voters who did not like Romney's polished corporate identity (or anything else about Romney), but were uncomfortable with Palin's .  Basically, I thought he was the most electable-seeming candidate.  Not really anymore.

I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions about him being "finished" until we see how the media narrative forms on it.  How many voters ever knew about John McCain's divorce?  That's an extreme example, but still.

This is good news...for John McCain Mitt Romney!

Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder if those debate stages in 2012 will be Romney standing alone on stage while the moderator declares, "We're sorry that the other candidates couldn't make it tonight.  Governor Pawlenty has been grounded by a freak tornado and Governor Johnson giggling to old Cheech & Chong routines and eating Pringles."

I hope so, but he's done and said worse things imo.

Knock it off you robotic clown. Every conversation is not about the 2012 electoral map.

If Huckabee wins the nomination he will lose because he is a Christian and i don't like Christians and he will do badly among a certain group and lose Oklahoma but he will win because he is a Christian and he loves America but Obama will win because he will do well in certain states because of this, that and the other, but he could lose Utah and Wyoming but he will do well among middle aged voters which means Huckabee has a chance of winning California because he is not an Athiest and i think Obama will win Ohio because Huckabee is a great man and will win Ohio. Also, polls say that Huckabee will win but that can't be right because the polling organization is wrong and Huckabee will win Washington DC because he will win Utah and that will give Obama the Presidency.

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/hucks_defense.php

video of him on the O'Reilly factor defending himself

I wonder if 'the factor' is still the most watched cable news show, now with Glenn Beck on FOX. I'm not sure O Reilly's ego could take that.

LOL

Like he ever had a chance anyway.

Huckabee's not finished as a political force.  I think he will still have a following.

As a Presidential candidate, he is absolutely finished.  As morbid as it sounds, I think the high body count makes the situation look worse politically, as does the fact this is not the first time he has gotten in trouble over law & order issues.  If this was the first case of this and there had only been one victim, he might have been able to weather it.  But a quadruple cop-killer who had previously assaulted an officer and was accused of child molestation?  And after Huckabee's previous controversy with Wayne DuMond?  The optics of it are devastating.

Oops, you're going to feel silly in a little while...

For the record, I was humiliated by van der blubb but decided to delete the post

In case anyone wonders what happened to the real pbrower2a, then I am he; imitation is flattery, but when it is that blatant it is plagiarism.  

Corrected:

The GOP has few ways to win and many to lose in 2012.  One of those ways - Huckabee - has may have disappeared today with the emergence of this story.  Huckabee may well have been finished even earlier.  The corporate tycoons and the robber barons  Executive Elite who control the inner workings of the GOP would have seen to it that a populist candidate never]with the common touch (would become) the nominee, no matter how sympathetic he may have been to their Christofascist policies.  

This means that the Clinton-but-not Obama states are in danger of falling to the Democrats.  These states are culturally different.  Time will tell if they will vote for a candidate who has improved their economic situation rather than one who shares their regressive values political culture.


my comment -- I have no way in which to know this or deny it. I can say nothing about that.


....

I don't use the hackneyed term "robber barons" for contemporary plutocrats or the word "Christofascist". I recognize the current configuration of the GOP as a coalition of right-wing special interests to the exclusion of almost all else.

It strikes me that this incident is a boon to Sarah Palin.  With Huckabee now damaged, she will have a stronger hold on the Religious Right/conservative blue collar vote.  Even if she doesn't run, they will likely have to appease her somehow.

A dumb prank, really, but kinda reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LghBMBAAQiI&feature=related

The fact remains that he is a jackass.

hopefully

Huckabee is done. He will never survive this onsluaght, even if much of isn't fair, the fact remains that those murders were a direct result of Mike Huckabee.


Cheers, President Romney.

What isn't fair?

President Romney?

I assume you're seeing something I'm not.

I think Huckabee is better off staying where he's at with his show on Fox.

For his sake, and for America's.

I guess not:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/12/08/huckabee_unscathed.html

I'm sure he would get hammered on it in the primaries though. Quite frankly, most people have no idea that he let the guy out of jail. Not everyone is politically in-tuned like the rest of us.

As I just posted in another thread about Palin quitting as governor, most voters don't follow stuff like this.  Huckabee is hardly in the public eye anymore, and most people aren't following news about him.  The question, rather, is how this would play in a primary election campaign as the other candidates try to educate the voters about it.

His primary opponents might use it, recalling the very-effective "Willie Horton" ad, but Obama would never use it against Huckabee for reasons that should be obvious. 

If he were running for President, he'd be sticking to the diet/exercise regimen. As is, if you saw his latest Daily Show appearance, he's gained a good deal of weight.

I would say he his.  His involvement with the Lakewood, WA police massacre suspect will hurt him, as will his staunch conservatism.  You cannot win a presidential election in this day in age by being on either extreme.  One has to campaign close to the center and then slowly move to toward one-sided governing, like President Obama has done.  He campaigned from the center-left, but is governing from the left.  President Bush even campaigned from the center-right, but governed farther to the right from where he campaigned.  I just don't think Huckabee knows how to campaign from the center just like Sarah Palin wouldn't know how to.  You can win the primaries from the fringe, but not the general election.

No. Obama is governing from the right.

Obama's governing for his 2012 run, not any ideological standpoint.

Precisely. In general, that means his policies are right-wing.

It would be hilarious, from a conservative perspective, if the 5% who believe this shoot themselves in the head again with Nader (or a Naderite) and cost Obama the election.

Palin should be hoping for Bloomberg to enter the race as a third-party candidate.  Bloomberg is the type of guy who can win 30% of moderates in a Palin/Bloomberg/Obama contest, potentially making it a race between conservatives and liberals.  He would probably take very little from the 43-44% that Palin is winning right now.

Bloomberg would hopefully run on a explicitly pro-gay marriage/moderately pro-environment/moderately anti-war platform.

Bloomberg won't run.

But there's always hope. :D

Although, he would never win and Obama is preferable to Palin.

1. Bloomberg
2. Obama
3. Palin

Yes

1) As someone who voted for Huckabee, I can say he's finished.

2) I admit squirrels don't have much meat on their bones but there is nothing wrong in eating them.

Not if chuck norris has anything to say about it.

It might hurt him in the primaries. But in the general election, I could see Huckabee getting black support (in 2016, that is).

Did you know that 48% of blacks voted for him in the 1998 Arkansas gubernatorial election?

Link: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/AR/G/exit.poll.html

I think yes, but I don’t beleive Huckabee could ever win the nomination in the first place. As we saw in the 2008 election, Huck have real trouble reaching beyond his base of evangelical Christians. That might have been enough if Huck was the only show in town for the Christian Right, but that is hardly the case. He will most likely have to compete with Palin, Pawlenty (who have conventiently decided to run as a socially conservative culture-warrior) and maybe even Rick Santorum.

if Huckabee runs, it will be like Michael Dukakis and Willie Horton, for the republicans

I'm prepared to cost Obama the election by voting independent or third party.  I'm willing to let the other legacy party in to get Obama out.  Really, if we can collapse one party, the other will follow--and maybe, just maybe people we'll pay attention to policy and to the matter of who owns this country.  How will collapsing one party take down both?  They are nothing more than advertisers to niche markets.  Instead of offering up substantive leftist policy, the Democrat™ Party enacts corporatist/neoliberal policy with pseudo-intellectual "technocratic" "expertise" and markets itself basically according to Republican stereotypes (on DailyKos, you'll probably see more Palin-bashing than anything of substance).  They are marketing to people with severe cases of status inflation.  The Republicans affect a populist and folksy demeanor and market themselves against whomever the leaders of the Democrat™ happen to be.  That is, both avoid substantive policy discuss and instead market themselves as a religion or status elevator.  And both want "close" "elections"--the duopoly thrives on faux competition.  It optimizes the plutocratic donations and the promises they get to be a lobbyist/board member following defeat/retirement/conviction.

We're about to make it a federal crime not to purchase private junk insurance (Romney care), we guaranteed the banks $22 trillion in future bailouts, and we're about to privatize Medicare and Social Security.  Republicans would do the absolute same things.  How would voting independent or third party not optimize my chances of changing things?

Except your entire approach to the subject is flat-out wrong -- and I say this as a libertarian who hardly sees a difference in the major Parties.

Political science is empirical at least to a degree. History shows that, when one Party enters an extended period of decline, the other most emphatically does not "follow" - observe the lengthy twilight years of the Democratic Party between 1860 and 1884, or between 1896 and what is really 1932 - or, conversely, the state of the GOP for the twenty years between Roosevelt and Eisenhower. The "other Party" remains, simply waiting in the wings.

I agree with a lot of what you say. But the way you say it is absolutely asinine.

"Political science is empirical to a degree."

Quaint statement.  Good political science/economics is entirely empirical/theory-based. 

Those periods that you mention are periods of dormancy, not collapse.  The party out of power was still seen as viable.  The main thing Democrats had going for them 2000-8 was overcoming weak Republican majorities.  It was their marketing strategy.  Twenty years before that split control of the executive and legislative branches was one of the means by which both parties stayed "viable" to the public.  Republicans will no doubt employ the same marketing strategy in 2010/2.  A positive feedback model best approximates the symbiotic behavior of the legacy parties.  The corporatism intensifies with every "realignment" (realignments are becoming less accepted in political science), or with every successive administration.

"It's not what you said but how you said it!"  How should I restate the corporate takeover of the country and global bankster thuggery via the legacy parties "competition"?  Maybe I should look to Obama's Hallmark card grandiloquence.  Oh, Smart Leader Obama!  Show me thine ways of Chicago!  I think it's an "asinine" attempt/argument to employ ad hominen attacks by condescending someone's style when the arguments they are making are logically sound.  Condescension comes easy to the Obama Fan Base.

Not hardly. The social 'sciences' are not nearly deterministic enough that they can be called truly empirical - it is impossible to account for the vagaries of the election cycle because of the sheer amount of random foam inherent to it. It's only empirical to the extend that trends can be generalized and extrapolated for a given period of time, but even this does not hold.


There is no practicable distinction. The present Party structure has ossified to such a degree that these institutions will probably far outlast the nation they allegedly serve.


Which is precisely why that hoping for a "collapse" of either major Party is utterly ridiculous. The Parties are structured to exist in perpetuo; the Democrats and the Republicans need each other, and this model affords to us a stability that simply does not exist in parliamentary governments. You're utterly mistaken if you think you can take either Party permanently out of action, or that both would collapse if one did. No, the other Party would simply enter into remission for a number of years like pancreatic cancer before resurfacing when the times called for it. This is demonstrable; it has happened before. Your fantasy has not, and almost certainly never will.


I'm now a member of the "Obama Fan Base"? Shove it up your ass, you petulant twat. Did I not say in my initial post that I am, and I quote -


You can take your populist good-ol'-boy rhetoric and violate yourself with it.

He recently said that Obama was going to ge reelected.