The new Rasmussen poll out of Arkansas ought to clam up Obamafans that say he can win in Red States,

Really?  Clinton has an almost incumbent-esque jive to Arkansas, where Huckabee is the former governor, where Obama doesn't, and that's the state you want to compare for red-state appeal?  Please.  

This poll has nothing to do with winning red-states, this poll has to do with winning Arkansas.  

A bit rich comparing Obama's match-up with Hillary's in Arkansas, where she is virtually favourite daughter.  How 'bout Ohio, PA and Florida?

Of course the wife of a popular former governor turned president and a former governor would outperform Obama in a state where he has no local connections at all, especially this early.  I think posting this poll and claiming it shows Hillary has any advantage over Obama in red states is more than a little disingenuous.

I think this guy is dangerous. He's like a more qualified, more likable, and more talented George Bush circa 2000. And say what you will but Bush did very well against Gore. Huckabee could probably win against any of the democratic candidates.

As for the other republicans, I think Romney would be crushed in the general election and Guiliani while conceivably strong has a lot of nasty baggage. At this point Thompson has no chance of even getting the nomination and McCain doesn't have a very high one either.  

Obama's losing by 19% and all there are is excuses galore & that Clinton also is losing there has no excuse either. Sorry fans, the electability gig seems to have timed out.

I think Huckabee is peaking just a little too soon.  Is his fundraising picking up as fast as his poll numbers?  Clearly, if he wins the GOP nomination it will be a dagger through the heart of the "money is everything" school of punditry.  I can think of a lot of awful things to say about him but so far, at least, he is not the big money candidate.  

Thanks, Jerome, for pointing out our overconfidence.  Too many Dems, netrooters and otherwise, are already thinking about redecorating the White House.  Haven't we learned anything from 2000 & 2004??

Well it would have been nice to see this post this summer, but better late than never. This hubris is something that's pretty wide spread right now. You see it amongst A list bloggers too. Way, way way too much. My fear is that the party will wake up in late Nov 2008 wondering what happened.

I know that money and organization don't mean everything but they've got to mean SOMETHING.

And please show the Huckabee and Obama numbers in Illinois.

Well I would expect both Edwards and Obama to perform poorly against Huckabee in Arkansas. It's Huckabee's homestate. Hillary has some advantage, since the Clintons are loved there.

Let's face it, Arkansas is not going to set the tone for other red states if Huckabee is the nominee. He's the former governor there, what do you expect, our candidates to be trouncing him? If Hillary can't even come close with all the relationships she has there, then no one else will.

So if the Republican nominee is Huckabee, yeah, forget Arkansas, but it will not affect other red states.

I am amazed that a sophisticated observer could declare this "Huckabee's race to lose" based upon approximately one week of honeymoon coverage of Huckabee as the fresh face rising in the polls.  Everyone is in such a hurry to be the first to declare a winner.  I'm reminded of Chris Bowers' hasty conclusion that Obama has become the front-runner for the nomination.

As for the issue of Arkansas, yes, let's take some new polling that happens to coincide with Huckabee's strong run in the national media and declare that it represents the gospel truth.  As opposed to, say, all the prior polling that indicates Hillary would easily defeat Huckabee in Arkansas.

Also, it looks rather bad for this site to declare the religion of our Senate Majority Leader a "cult," and it looks even worse not to be able to spell the name of that religion.

Now, having unburdened myself, let me venture a constructive comment.  What I think people fail to understand, and time will tell if I am correct, is the more or less unique qualities of George W. Bush that enabled him to unify the disparate wings of the Republican coalition.  People seem to assume that well, they're all Republicans, the Wall Street types and the evangelicals will all show up in the end regardless of who the nominee is.

I don't think that's the case.  I don't think Big Business is necessarily going to rally behind a TV evangelist type who preaches an aggressively populist message, particularly not in light of the Republican Party's atrocious record as a steward of the economy.  And since that's the wing of the Republican Party that provides most of the funding, Huckabee could be in big money trouble considering he's shown no aptitude for raising big bucks on his own.

I think Democrats tend to get far too pessimistic and bogged down in the losing campaigns of the past.  As our conventional narrative would have it, the Democratic nominee has to get everything 100% perfect, while the Republican nominee simply has to show up and be a guy you'd like to have a beer with and he easily marches to the nomination.  In reality, the other guy has to overcome challenges too, you know.

What's Huckabee's "base"?

I suppose the easy answer is "evangelicals" - but I'm increasingly thinking (in GOP primary terms) that they're not the unbreakable block an outsider might think they are.

I like to amuse myself perusing the right's blogs and near as I can tell... Redstate is Thompson land, perhaps with a slight "take another look at McCain" nod.  Lucianne seems to be Giuliani/Romney death match.  Freeper seems all over the place.

FWIW, Huckabee seems to have less cred with that crowd than even McCain.  I've heard "Clinton clone" (apparently there was some sort of Gov's mansion furniture scam by the Hucks?).  I've heard he's the single most hated candidate by the "Mexico is invading us" crowd.   I've heard he's the tax-n-spender from the corporatist crowd.

Of course, the far right sites are even less representative of GOP primary voters than DK/Atrios/here/et al are of the Democratic crowd - but still, it just seems there is real loathing from the mouth-breathing, Limbaugh-listening, Bill O'Reilly is too liberal crowd.

Where are the polls showing he can win the General Election?  I just see one for Arkansas (where he's been governor for >10 years).

I think Huckabee can only go up.  He can start to peel of the 6 or 7 Thompson supporters that are left.

Jerome, do you think we are idiots? You cite one state, where (as a reader above notes) Clinton is a quasi-incumbent, yet you ignore the much more important national numbers. I have had it with this crap. You are dragging your own site down.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_2008__1/2008_pr esidential_election/election_2008_huckab ee_vs_clinton_obama

General Election Rasmussen:

Clinton 46% Huckabee 45%;
Obama 45% Huckabee 41%

even know who huckabee is?  Polling of any other state besides arkansas for the general election would probably be pointless at this time.

And about the south...Hillary, Obama, and any other Democrat have very little potential to win states there.  Most of those states are just as solidly republican in presidential elections as they used to be solidly democratic- not to mention that they will be the most hostile to a female, black, or trial lawyer president.

The states that will be most competitive in the general election are the mountain west and midwest states.

i would expect all of the republican and democratic candidates to be competitive there.

I agree that picking Arkansas as your test case is a stupid way to make your point. I'm more interesting in say, Ohio or Kentucky. But I see your point we should be scared about Huckabee. Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson at this might as well have a big L for loser stomped on their forehead. But Huckabee, heck I have a hard time hating him, even though he's in many ways scarier than all of them (except nuke 'em all Giuliani).

What I don't get is that he has no money. Dennis Kucinich have raised more cash than him. How can you expect to win the GOP nomination by being the poorest candidate in the field? You can be at a fundraising disadvantage, but to be as dirt broke as he is makes me wonder how he could slingshot an Iowa victory into the nomination.

The other thing is that Huckabee has a minimal ground operation. I don't know how you can win with the skeleton crew he's got, whatever the polls may say. But if he wins Iowa, I really hope Edwards will be celebrating at the same time.

The new Rasmussen poll out of Arkansas ought to clam up Obamafans that say he can win in Red States, or those that claim Clinton has a plan other than winning Florida, for the Presidency.

In her defense, Clinton is the only Democrat who beats the GOP field in all 3 sing states, FL, OH, and PA, in this week's Quinnipiac's swing state polls.

I think the Arkansas match up poll numbers against Huckabee should not be seen as a knock on Obama since he has zero ties to the state.

If anything , those polls are bad for Hillary since she has deep roots in Arkansas.

Hillary is suppose to be Arkansas favorite daughter with very high name recognition...Obama , on the other hand , does not have the same kind of name ID...People may know he's the black candidate and heard of him , but do not have enough information to make a good judgement on him.

I do not expect Hillary to have any shot in Arkansas if Huckabee is the nominee anyway , and if Huck locks the nomination , i expect him to blow away any democrats in the state.

Jerome, I see your point.  Huckabee would be a tough candidate.  But McCain would impossible to beat.

I agree Edwards might be the best matchup against Huckabee.  Huckabee's appeal is also based on that he's an outsider.  The way to beat him is to hammer his "fair tax" plan, not any social issues.

But we shouldn't be deciding who's going to win on one small state, which happens to Huckabee's home state..

I've always said this will be a tough election.  But it can be won.

picking a state that both clinton and huckabee have ties to and claiming that obama can't win in ANY red state is a stretch, my friend.

get a grip.

Romney is nothing more than Bob Dole, Jerome. He's the candidate to fall on the sword if they believe the Democrats are insuperable.

The fact is, you raise cogent points about Dems feeling hubris...but that's the whole point of the race right now. Big donor started to cash checks too early and as such the long length of the race is actually beginning to help the grass roots candidates. Huckabee, Paul, and Gary Coleman included.

Huckabee is a scary candidate for Hillary indeed...but what that really means is that the more mainstream a candidate appears, the less likely their opponent can defeat him or her easily. That sounds like Duveger's Law there....

Polls in the December prior to the election are worth about the paper they are printed on.  Who knows whether Huckabee will be the nominee and who knows what issues he may or may not have.

Now I do think based on the limited amount I have seen of him that Huckabee is a dangerous candidate for the Dems.  However, lots of candidates have come back from "the dead" much later in the cycle.  Remember, George HW Bush was 17 pts down after the Dem convention in 1988 and Bill Clinton was dead last, behind Ross Perot, just before the Dem convention in 1992.  We have a long ways to go.

I think Huckabee would be tough too but he has some real weaknesses worth noting:

1) He's the one Republican candidate who would significantly diminish or even erase the Repub advantage on national security. The man has no foreign policy experience at all, and he just doesn't convey a sense of stature the way say, Giuliani does. If the Dems begin to write this narrative now, even his geniality won't save him. Case in point, his answer on the NIE yesterday.

2) He's vulnerable on his "fair tax" plan. It's an idea which even many conservatives dislike - there was a recent NRO column tearing it apart, and it's so radical it has the potential to turn many people off once they know about it. I don't think many people are paying attention to his advocacy of the issue right now, but look for more on it as he gains momentum.

3) He'll divide the Republican party. The effect on the Republican party would be like what would happen with Giuliani, but inverted - instead of social conservatives tearing away, moderate fiscal conservatives and business types might bolt to Clinton or Obama.

4) He's the candidate who most resembles Bush. Which 28% of the country might be fine with, but the idea of not reelecting Bush will resonate in a lot of swing states.

I don't give a damn what that poll says 12 months of attacks against Hillary or Obama or Edwards will make those numbers dwindle in the South.  Regardless of the poll, I would put money Hillary doesn't beat Huckabee in Arkansas and Huckabee sweeps the south, with the possible exception of Florida or Virginia.  Same with Obama; he might win Florida or Virginia but it will be a battle.  Our path lies west... the midwest and the west will be our salvation... States like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio and Missouri are winnable and will be what puts us over the top regardless of the candidate.  

But overall agreed, Huckabee is dangerous and we desperately need to destroy him now so that either Mitt wins (who will be an easy win) or Huckabee is damaged.  

Huckabee has always been the Repunblican candidate that scares me. The half-sane man in the asylum is king, or something like that. He is the only candidate who, TO DATE, has seemed both intelligent and likable. We'll see how long that likability lasts if he is a frontrunner. Also, don't write off the released rapist story just yet. It is the corporate wing of the GOP that controls the mass media, and they can make it stick around easily if they chose.

Then take the 15/1 or 20/1 on Huckabee becoming president. It's available right now. Check PoliticalBetting.com and they have links to all the sites that take action.

No thank you, from my standpoint. It's horrible value.

IMO, the two frontrunners are understated on sites like this. Those big states that decide the delegate count are not going to change dramatically from where they've been for an entire year, or more.

Remember, the same people who are projecting the massive bump out of Iowa and New Hampshire based on historical trends were the ones most confident that the so-called incumbent rule would boost Kerry over Bush in '04.

I rely on historical statewide trends myself in the general election, but IMO the primaries are an entirely different matter. Give me long term strength and leads in national polls, not someone trying to climb through the rafters based on late surge and a couple of early states. Kerry could make a comeback since he led early and was the presumed nominee early in the process. Everything tends to drift back to the beginning. That's why McCain is showing some rekindling now. But the base still distrusts him.

Huckabee will not be our opponent, at least not atop the ticket.