Post by Buckeye GOP on Feb 26, 2008 12:55:03 GMT -5
I just ran some numbers to compare how much Mitt helps Mac as a VP v. how much Huck helps Mac as a VP and I think that they are startling.
Huck out-polled Romney in 9 states. Of those states where Huck beat Mitt 3 (West Virginia, Georgia, and Missouri) were by 5 percentage points of less, 3 (Iowa, Tennessee, and Oklahoma) were by 10 percentage points or less, and 3 (S.Carolina, Alabama, and Arkansas) were by 15 percentage points or more. The one state that I see as an outlier is West Virginia because Mitt soundly out-polled Huck (by 8 percentage points) in W.Virginia until Mac's reps lined up with Huck (even though Huck won it shows West Virginians align with Mitt more than with Huck). So really we have 8 states where Huck can bring more to Mac than Mitt can.
As mentioned, the margin of victory in Georgia and Missouri was so razor thin that it is really a wash as to who helps Mac the most there (both Southern type states, by the way, where Huck campaigned a great deal and where Mitt did not). Of the remaining states, where Huckabee had a moderate to significant level of support above Mitt, the only places where Huck beat Mac was in Iowa (where Mac did not campaign) and Arkansas. This, in my opinion, indicates that there are few places where Huckabee gives McCain a significant bump in November (where Mac needs help) over what Mitt could give him.
Mitt, as Doc noted in an earlier email, when he beat Huck tended to do so by landslides. The numbers confirm this. Romney beat Huckabee in 20 states. Of those 20 states where Mitt out polled Huck 0 were within 5 percentage points, 0 were within 10 percentage points and only Illinois was within 15 percentage points. If we go to 20 percentage points Huckabee only came within that range 5 times (Florida, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and North Dakota). In six more states (New Hampshire, Michigan, California, Alaska, Minnesota, and Montana) Huck's gap was 21-25 percentage points. In Mitt's remaining 8 states (Wyoming, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Utah) where he out polled Huck by 26 percentage points or more the average margin was by a whopping 48 percentage points.
If we look at just the South including West Virginia (this is technically not the South, but I think culturally it is more like the South than the Mid-West or East Coast and should be part of a winning Southern strategy in November), Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri (also a Southern type state that is technically not part of the South), South Carolina Mitt has stronger appeal that Huck in West Virginia, and Florida - there is nearly a dead heat in Missouri and Georgia - and Mac does not need much help in S. Carolina (maybe this is debatable because Mac likely would have lost had Thompson been out of the race), Alabama, and Tennessee.
It just seems to me that despite the conventional wisdom about Mac needing help in the South, Huck doesn't get him much further there than Mitt does and considering the ability of Mitt to draw much bigger numbers across the board nationwide I think that Mitt would be a much better pick. Mitt, as I said before, helps Mac in the following ways/areas: the West, in a lot of purple states (New Mexico, New Hampshire, Arizona, Minnesota, Florida, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Colorado, West Virginia, Maine, Nevada – and maybe even makes a blue state, Massachusetts, in play), with the non-evangelical conservatives, with the idea that there is a strong leader waiting in the wings if something happens to Mac, with the economy, and with raising huge sums of cash (from Mitt and from Mitt’s donors). Mitt does have some baggage as I have noted including negative statements about Mac that would be great on OBillAry’s campaign commercials and he upsets evangelicals. Given the numbers above I think Mitt would be the best VP pick.
Huck out-polled Romney in 9 states. Of those states where Huck beat Mitt 3 (West Virginia, Georgia, and Missouri) were by 5 percentage points of less, 3 (Iowa, Tennessee, and Oklahoma) were by 10 percentage points or less, and 3 (S.Carolina, Alabama, and Arkansas) were by 15 percentage points or more. The one state that I see as an outlier is West Virginia because Mitt soundly out-polled Huck (by 8 percentage points) in W.Virginia until Mac's reps lined up with Huck (even though Huck won it shows West Virginians align with Mitt more than with Huck). So really we have 8 states where Huck can bring more to Mac than Mitt can.
As mentioned, the margin of victory in Georgia and Missouri was so razor thin that it is really a wash as to who helps Mac the most there (both Southern type states, by the way, where Huck campaigned a great deal and where Mitt did not). Of the remaining states, where Huckabee had a moderate to significant level of support above Mitt, the only places where Huck beat Mac was in Iowa (where Mac did not campaign) and Arkansas. This, in my opinion, indicates that there are few places where Huckabee gives McCain a significant bump in November (where Mac needs help) over what Mitt could give him.
Mitt, as Doc noted in an earlier email, when he beat Huck tended to do so by landslides. The numbers confirm this. Romney beat Huckabee in 20 states. Of those 20 states where Mitt out polled Huck 0 were within 5 percentage points, 0 were within 10 percentage points and only Illinois was within 15 percentage points. If we go to 20 percentage points Huckabee only came within that range 5 times (Florida, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and North Dakota). In six more states (New Hampshire, Michigan, California, Alaska, Minnesota, and Montana) Huck's gap was 21-25 percentage points. In Mitt's remaining 8 states (Wyoming, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Utah) where he out polled Huck by 26 percentage points or more the average margin was by a whopping 48 percentage points.
If we look at just the South including West Virginia (this is technically not the South, but I think culturally it is more like the South than the Mid-West or East Coast and should be part of a winning Southern strategy in November), Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri (also a Southern type state that is technically not part of the South), South Carolina Mitt has stronger appeal that Huck in West Virginia, and Florida - there is nearly a dead heat in Missouri and Georgia - and Mac does not need much help in S. Carolina (maybe this is debatable because Mac likely would have lost had Thompson been out of the race), Alabama, and Tennessee.
It just seems to me that despite the conventional wisdom about Mac needing help in the South, Huck doesn't get him much further there than Mitt does and considering the ability of Mitt to draw much bigger numbers across the board nationwide I think that Mitt would be a much better pick. Mitt, as I said before, helps Mac in the following ways/areas: the West, in a lot of purple states (New Mexico, New Hampshire, Arizona, Minnesota, Florida, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Colorado, West Virginia, Maine, Nevada – and maybe even makes a blue state, Massachusetts, in play), with the non-evangelical conservatives, with the idea that there is a strong leader waiting in the wings if something happens to Mac, with the economy, and with raising huge sums of cash (from Mitt and from Mitt’s donors). Mitt does have some baggage as I have noted including negative statements about Mac that would be great on OBillAry’s campaign commercials and he upsets evangelicals. Given the numbers above I think Mitt would be the best VP pick.