Why Mitt helps Mac more than Huckabee as VP

[Buckeye GOP]

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.

[Truth Unites and Divides]

If McCain wins the GOP nomination, I would love to see Romney get picked as the VP.

And I say that as a firm Huckabee supporter. I don't want Mike Huckabee anywhere near the toxic RINOism of McCain.

[Buckeye GOP]

Visitors to the site are welcome to join the discussion on this or other topics or join as board members. Take a look at the general board buckeyegop.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=general

I recommend the editorial in the Columbus Dispatch about Mike Huckabee written by my good friend (but supporter of a different candidate) Bill Michael. There are also numerous threads about Mitt.

[Thomas]

Very interesting. I don't think Mitt will accept the nod. He might, now that I think about it, but it seems he's going the path of Reagan and will prove a strong contender in 2012 if McCain loses.

Since Obama is going the way of Carter, a President Obama will soundly be defeated in 2012 by Romney.

[DB]

Mittt is a fake. He would be a drag on the tickt. Huckabee is by far a better choice. A REAL person over a ken doll

[DCleveland]

McCain has one chance to recoup support from a significant portion of the conservative base. Mitt Romney isn't the answer. Duncan Hunter, J.C. Watts , Jim DeMint, Michael Steele, or another conservative, with significant conservative credentials and history, is the only hope that McCain has of pulling our votes.

Don't ever doubt that if McCain picks Romney or Huckabee, in the place of a real conservative option, that millions of us will vote for conservatives in our State & Local races and ignore the Presidential race entirely. I am aware that this is problem for a lot of folks out there - however platitudes and a lesser of evils option doesn't work anymore for some of us. While it won't warm our hearts when/if Obama or Hillary moves into the White House, millions of us lived through Jimmy "the Grin" Carter and his trashing of America. We figure we will survive this worst case as well.

We intend to make one particular point, to the RNC, on this issue and if we have to bloody the noses of the Rockefeller Republicans to get their attention - so be it.
McCain is no conservative and neither is Romney or Huckabee. A solid conservative VP candidate would change the entire complexion of Sen. McCains appeal to folks like myself. We could hold our nose and pull the lever for a McCain/Watts or a McCain/Hunter ticket. Mitt or Huck won't do.

The Republican Party origins were pre-dated by the demise of the WHIGS in the mid-1800s. As with the WHIGS - perhaps the Republican Party is mis-managing itself out of any resemblance to conservatism/smaller government and thus out of any current relevance to conservative citizens. Time will tell.

Best Regards,
D. Cleveland
Former Republican / Ever A Constitutional Conservative

[DB]

Sounds like D. Cleveland is acting like a child.

If I cant get my way I'll just let Osoma/obama win and let Americans die....cuz I didn't get my way.

GROW UP and vote republican if you care about your fellow Americans.

[D Cleveland]

Sounds like DB has no integrity and less character. Rhetoric such as yours is what has left the Republican Party with no consensus as to what it stands for or where it wants to go in the future. You either believe in what you profess to believe in or you are just another yes-man, in this case for the RNC.

Please feel free to call me names. That is what children do when they have no legitimate answer to an issue that has been brought up. This is not about anyone getting their way, Spud. This is about whether John McCain and the RNC can be trusted to keep Americans from dying. DB - going along to get along is a cowards ploy, whether in life or in politics. Adults agree to disagree and then try to persuade with argument and logic. Try it some time - it beats calling folks names for getting them to listen to your side of the argument.

My apology for bothering to post here.

[Mary]

Well, you're probably right about Mitt being a better VP choice than Huckabee, especially since Huckabee is NOT running for VP, contrary to what the media keeps saying. I agree with the earlier comment: I do not want to see Huckabee anywhere near a McCain ticket.

If McCain is the nominee, I will likely hold my nose and vote for him, as his own mother recommends, even if Romney is the VP choice. Honestly, I don't think McCain stands a chance in November, no matter who is his VP nominee.

[Buckeye GOP]

soundpolitics.com/archives/010329.html

Here is an interesting piece on the Mac v. Huckabee as VP debate

[Buckeye GOP]

In an email discussing the topic from a forum member:

We’ve discussed Huck’s policy, personality, and ability to connect with voters [in other threads]. So I think those are the first set of reasons. Turning to politics, and helping a ticket win, Huck’ll get you the rural vote in an election where I think either D could do well with rural voters (in contrast to recent, previous elections). Huck’ll also help in the South where, again, I think either D could do well (in contrast to recent, previous elections). Plus, Huck’ll solidify evangelicals and, perhaps most importantly, get them to the polls. I have some concern that they may not with Mac at the top. (See, e.g., endorsements from prominent conservatives/evangelicals of Huck even though the race was, for all intents and purposes, over).

The bottom-line is that I think either D could do very well among constituencies that typically go R, and that are crucial to an R winning (particularly in light of the fact that Rs don’t do well in big states on either coast). If that’s true, Huck’s important to a ticket.

[BuckeyeGOP] makes a good case for Mitt. But on the margin, I think Mitt’s voters go R no matter what. Yes, he could help in Michigan, which is of no small moment. But with either D, I’m not sure how much. And with Mac being a westerner himself, I don’t know that he needs to shore up that vote. I guess the question I have about Mitt is – On the margin, how many voters could he bring that would otherwise not vote R (or not vote at all)? I’m not sure the breadth of his appeal to voters on the margin is as great as Huck’s.

[Buckeye GOP]

Another forum member replied:

Good points on Huck – he is an exceptionally gifted candidate, easily the most affable and charismatic contender in the GOP field. But could he really bring voters that wouldn’t otherwise be voting R? I’m still under the impression that despite his significant upsides, his support stopped at the evangelical church parking lot. I have yet to see any evidence that he ever significantly reached beyond this group, even after he was the only “conservative” choice to Mac. I’m not sure there is support for the “breadth” of appeal argument for Huck. And I have a different take on the timing of aforementioned prominent evangelical/conservative endorsements for Huck – perhaps the most prominent of which (Dr. D) came only after Mitt was out of the race. I will be disappointed if evangelicals need to be persuaded to vote because their guy didn’t get in. I honestly don’t know a single republican who wanted Mac to win (I know they exist, I just don’t personally know them). However, the general will be as much if not more about who we don’t want as president as who we do, probably on both sides. And Mac is far from perfect but he is also far from the alternative. So my question is do evangelicals really need to be rallied for the general? Earlier this year polls showed (and we discussed) that Mac was the overwhelming 2nd choice of Huck supporters. Has this changed? I also thought that Mac polled well on his own in the South to begin with, even with Huck and Mitt still in the race?

[Buckeye GOP]

Another email on the topic:

Just to make sure I was clear, by breadth, I didn’t mean across a lot of constituencies (eg, men, women, economic conservatives, national defense conservatives, etc.). Rather, I meant breadth more in the geographical sense. In other words, no matter the state, Huck’ll help with rural voters and evangelicals (and all states have them). To motivate and keep such voters at home, as opposed to going to a very good African-American candidate, or a very good female candidate, Huck could be important. Mitt might have a greater breadth as far as constituencies, but I think those constituencies stay home regardless of the D. I could see the rural Ohio voter going for Hillary in Huck’s absence. I can’t see a corporate guy from Cleveland go for her in Mitt’s absence.

Good point re Mac in the South. But I don’t know that it’s as strong as one might think at first. To the extent Florida is a southern state, he did well there. Yes, Mac one SC, too. But w/o Thompson in the SC race, Huck takes that state by 10 points. Either D chips away at SC Mac voters along the SC coast. Mac also won Va. – but only with the DC suburb vote. Huck licked him in the country, where either D could give Mac a run for his money while at the same time taking voters from the ‘burbs. In Tx., Huck did well despite the race being for all intents and purposes over. Either D could take votes from Mac in the Tx. country, while chipping away at urban/suburban Texans. In short, Mac (and I think this reflects what happened in the primary more generally) won in the South with voters (suburban/urban) that could go D in the general, and not with voters (rural) that either D may be more apt to take than in previous elections (and that Rs really need). Mac can work on the suburban/urban voters, where he’s showed some strength, but who aren’t as steadfast in the R camp, and Huck could take rural and evangelical voters, where Mac needs help and either D might do well.

I would be disappointed, too. But how else do you read, for example, the Dallas Morning News endorsing Huck when everyone knew Mac would win? Or Dr. D’s endorsement? Anecdotally, I’ve talked to some rural voters (some evangelical, some not) who said they’d seriously consider voting for Hillary were Mac the nominee w/o Huck. Put this together, and although Mac may have been Huck folks’ number two, that doesn’t mean they’d vote for him (particularly if they have an alternative that strikes “blue collar” cords like Hillary).