I've been predicting a strong second for Huckabee in Iowa... but not this strong!

This is one of those predictions where you'd rather be wrong. Huckabee's nice guy Baptist preacher schtick is dangerous, and I consider him the last pug I want to see nominated. He's a wild card... it's that "likeability" bullshit.

Anyway, he is now tied for second in Iowa, with real support, and he keeps going up while Thompson fades. If McCain can take a bite out of Romney, Huckabee could win Iowa despite having no money. (And then the Christian right will fall over themselves to donate to him.)

Among Republicans, Mitt Romney has 25%. In second place, Fred Thompson is statistically tied with Mike Huckabee for second, with Thompson at 19% and Huckabee with 18%. Rudy Giuliani is in fourth place with 13%, and John McCain in fifth at 6%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/iowa_republican_caucus
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/poll_hillary_and_romney_leading_in_iowa_mike_huckabee_catching_up.php

under his rational exterior, lurks a real threat.

because he's the best of a bad litter: nuts enough for the fundies and with a decent record as a governor.

check out this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2069530

We have had six national tickets recently with an actual honest-to-god dumbass on them: Reagan/Bush 80, Reagan/Bush 84, Bush/Qualye 88, Bush/Qualyle 92, Bush/Cheney 2000 and Bush/Cheney 2004.

Only one of those six tickets failed to gain or retain the white house. (Gerald Ford was no genius, but he wasn't a total clod like Chimpy... but if one must, make it 5 out of 7)

Huckster is essentially the Chimp, with a smoother tongue and maybe 5 or 10 additional IQ points--that's not going to go down as well in 2008 as it did in 2000 and 2004. He's said enough stupid/nonsensical things to seriously make me question his mental acuity. He doesn't rally or excite Evangelicals (whom you'd think would have supported him from day one), he doesn't excite the FisCons, he doesn't excite the war hawks, and the big-business donors don't like his phony populist-protectionist spiel. He's getting a second look in IA because Fred is tanking, and Rudy and McCain long ago decided not to waste their time there. He has a mixed record as gov, a really fucked-up son, and some skeletons. There's a reason Bill Clinton (who knows Arkansas politics) was complimenting and promoting Huckster on one of the Sunday shows. I'm pretty sure Hillary DREAMS of running against him, but she knows she won't be that lucky.

edit to add: I have a pretty good track record on assessing Repugs--I predicted Thompson flopping a loooong time ago, and no one believed me then.

But for the record, Bush is not unpopular because he is stupid. He is unpopular because he lost a war.

Reagan, a real dope, remains revered.

Reagan never came off as stupid as GWB, not even in his Alzheimer-unit days. The one thing you can say about Rudy, Romney, McCain, and Thompson is that they're clearly smarter than Chimp (yes, even Thompson). The 30-percenters don't think he lost the war--they see it as the only worthwhile thing he's ever done, because he's otherwise a tongue-tied, big-spending, illegal alien-loving, fake conservative loser. Hucky has a slim chance (very slim) of getting the nomination if he gets a big bounce from Iowa, but he's not nearly enough of a force to win the general. He has no major accomplishments or claim to fame besides one-liners, weight loss and bass guitar. If Romney was more likeable on the stump, or if Rudy had not worn a dress and loved fetuses more, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

I believed you...

Fred Thompson is the 2008 version of Clayton Williams...

out manuevering the democratic majority in congress. I can't
name one significant victory for our side since 2006 election.

He may not believe that living organisms evolve over the course of thousands of generations, he may believe that God created the universe 6000 years ago with the light from those distant stars already traveling toward us in order to fool humans into thinking the universe is older than it is, but he is not a dumb guy.

He's a damn shrewd politician with enough pluck and strategic insight to find out and engage the "please don't talk to me like I'm an idiot" niche market in the Republican primaries. It's working for him while all the other conservative candidates are frauds, loonies, or bumpkins.

but he says extremely stupid things--and by stupid, I don't mean support for evolution or any particular policy, I mean stupid as in "WTF??" Juvenile attacks, strange analogies and really tone-deaf jokes. He's had next to no scrutiny, but if the spotlight ever shines on him for longer than a debate question, you'll see it.

I'm surprised folks retain such a lofty view of the American electorate, in terms of what they won't vote for. In my experience, they tend to vote for the biggest yokel in the race.

Clinton was lucky to be running against mainstream republican stiffs. In terms of image, he was the biggest yokel in those races. (A brilliant man, but able to be the avuncular slob at the barbecue when needed.)

You and I have talked about this before...The guy is dangerous.

I think his fellow Republican candidates underestimate him, which is making them point fingers at each other, and ignore him. Perfect opportunity for him slip in and gain ground.

Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo raised their hands during Thursday's debate when asked if they don't believe in evolution:

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mri8Ex5RmDw

Huckabee, in a conference call with reporters the morning after the debate, explained how he would have responded if given a chance to elaborate on the question:

"If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, that's fine. I'll accept that," he said Friday. "I just don't happen to think that I did."

As for what should be taught in public schools, Huckabee said he wants "schools to acknowledge that there are views that are different than evolution."

Huckabee downplayed the role evolution should have in the election. "Is a president going to sit in the Oval Office and really make a decision on what's being taught in a third-grade class in Dubuque, Iowa, on creation or evolution?" he said. "The answer is no."

Huckabee's views about his faith are sincere. Prior to his political career Huckabee was pastor of several Southern Baptist churches. He also served as president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention.

Only 28% of voters have a problem with that stance, and 15% think it's a plus!

"If a presidential candidate stated that he or she DID NOT believe in the theory of evolution, would that make you much more likely to vote for that candidate, a little more likely, not make a difference either way, would it make you a little less likely, or much less likely to vote for that candidate?"

Much More Likely - 8
A Little More Likely - 7
No Difference - 54
A Little Less Likely - 13
Much Less Likely - 15

USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 1-3, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

http://pollingreport.com/science.htm

of their voting coalition, they lose.

You say it is only 28% of the vote. That's HUGE! Significantly, it is 28% that includes about 10% to 12% Republicans. The Republicans cannot affort to give up on 10% to 12% of their voters.

Atheists, free thinkers, post-grads and scientists (the folks who have a strong negative opinion on the matter, versus the 54% who don't care) are overwhelmingly Democratic demos.

And we didn't see a big problem with Bush saying "the jury is out" on Evolution in 2000.

In practical terms we are talking about the population of REPs and INDs who will vote for the Republican candidate in 2008 UNLESS he is an anti-evolution whacko. Isolating the effect.

That's not 10 or 12% of the electorate any way you slice it. I'd be shocked if it was 5%. (Only 50% plus or minus will vote for the republican in any scenario.)

And an anti-evolution whacko will get votes Guliani would not. Half the US population thinks man was created in his present form by God. 23% split the difference and 7% have no idea. Only 17% belive in evolution as it is taught in science classes, as a process that could create man without divine intervention.

Most people are embarassed to talk about it at work, but evolution is not a popular idea in this country.

The benefits and detriments are so close I think it's a wash. It's nowhere near as big a deal as being a Mormon, for instance.

not as partisan an issue as you might think.

I couldn't find the article, but here is a quote from a poll that was referenced in the article:

"Roughly one-in-four Republicans (26%) believes conservative Christians have gone to far in trying to impose their religious values on the country.

Here are some cool charts from the Pew poll report:

(By the way, Tejanocrat, this is a fine exchange. I hope it doesn't seem rancorous. I don't mean it that way at all.)

The fact that many Republicans elect religious nuts while saying religious nuts have too much influence is unexceptional. The point is that they elect them. (I would tell a pollster about all kinds of things that have too much influence in the Dem party, while still voting Dem every time.)

There are single issue military voters in the republican party who tolerate the religious right in order to win.
There are single issue tax cut voters in the republican party who tolerate the religious right in order to win.

There are, however, BY DEFINITION no single issue secularist voters in the republican party who tolerate the religious right in order to win. All single issue secularist voters are Dems, Dem-leaning INDs. That's in voting terms. not private attitude terms.

Many Democrats would like their taxes lowered. But there are zero single-issue tax cut Dems. Many Dems are uncomfortable with abortion, but there are no single-issue pro-life Dems.

If pro-evolution republican voters were willing to vote against religious nuts for no reason other than their religious nuttiness we would have learned that a generation ago, but instead we learned the opposite. Moderate republicans have a great tolerance for voting for zany nit-wits. That's not a theory, it's history. We have all been living that nightmare since 1980. (In fact, the only two republicans I've seen lose lately--meaning not be inaugurated--were Bush I and Dole, two comparatively mainstream pugs.)

Whatever effect pro-science pugs have would be manifested in the primaries. I'm sure that pro-science pugs overwhelmingly voted for McCain in 2000, but then overwhelmingly voted for Bush in the general, even though Gore was about the most reason-friendly candidate ever.

I agree that evolution sanity and evolution craziness is fairly even in the parties. Something like 40% of Dems are anti-evolution... probably as large a bloc as pro-evolution republicans. But in its effect on elections, the tolerance of moderate republicans has been tested time and again and we haven't found the point yet where republicans will reject religious craziness if it costs them their tax cuts or defense build-ups.

The question, "Will moderate Republicans vote for a man who says he doesn't believe in evolution?" has even been tested. Reagan was no fan of evolution... he used code words to show sympathy for the non-scientific. Bush was/is hostile to evolution. The incremental step "I do not believe in evolution" is not a striking departure from the developed republican position. The phrase "the jury is still out on..." means that you don't believe it, whether it's evolution or global warming. (You may not DISbelieve it, but Huckabee's deal is that he doesn't believe in evolution, not that he is in a position to prove it is false.)

And Huckabee does not say flatly that the Earth is 5,000 years old. The non-evolution non-young-earther is smack dab in the middle of the electorate. It is gibberish, yes, but it is not an extreme position.

I concede that Huckabee MAY be a bridge too far for some voters. We don't know. My position is that I have not seen any reason to think he will be, given recent electoral history.

Reagan said jesus might come back during his term.

Bush won't say he believes in evolution.

Millions of educated people voted for both because they smelled money in it.

I see things like this and lose so much hope.I wonder how anyone could graduate from High School and still hang on to drivel like this.Remember back in the 70s(O.K.,I'm dating myself) when Carl Sagan did the "Cosmos" series on PBS? It was wildly popular and people were riveted by Sagan's poetic explanations of ourselves and our universe.What happened? Look what these backward republicans have turned us into.It honestly depresses the hell out of me.

If we were created by God I hope we'd be smarter than this!

I also called Warner for the Dems; that didn't work out so well, now did it? Anyway, Huckabee didn't catch fire at all like I thought he was going to, but it's interesting to see him start to pick up steam. I think he's the most dangerous of any of the Republican candidates.

If he finishes a strong 2nd in Iowa, Thompson can go back to a nap.

i just posted on a thread much like this except solely on evolution. but seriously, there cannot be enough people who would vote for someone who contradicts science that much, right? i hope. to people not realize what science has done for them? or how about, someone who throw rationality out the window, that is who we want as president? i once heard it said that the best president have been the practical presidents, ie abe and FDR. evolution bashing is certainly not practical. but that 15% scares the i dont know what out of me. makes me sad too, really sad.

So there seem to be plenty of such people. (Leaving aside questions of the legitimacy of Bush elections, there's no doubt he got millions and millions and millions of votes, whether he won or lost.)