Intransigent Huck Voters
by Patrick Ruffini :: February 2nd, 2008 1:10 amThe Romney campaign’s February 5th math is simple: move all the voters from the Huckabee pile onto theirs and claim a majority of conservatives. Unfortunately, it’s just not that simple.
In the South — still more delegate-rich per capita than NY, CA, NJ, IL, etc. — the “conservative” vote, defined as Romney + Huckabee, is splitting down the middle. Most polls down South look like McCain 30, Huckabee 25, Romney 25. We’ve seen how this played out in South Carolina, except there it was establishment conservatives refusing to take the advice that they play ball with Huckabee to strengthen their hand in Florida. We also saw it in rural northern Florida, where in many cases it was a three man race (and often a two man race between McCain and Huck).
The problem with this analysis is that I’ve seen no evidence that Huckabee voters would go to Romney. On a county level, the Romney and Huckabee votes are negatively correlated, with Romney representing the conservative side of the Chamber of Commerce/Rotary Club vote and not really showing outsized strength with Evangelicals.
Moreover, the Florida exit poll asked about second choices. Though the poll as reported doesn’t specifically break down the result by first choice vote, I’ve thrown the question into Excel to get some estimates (see it here). The poll outright defied the conventional wisdom of Giuliani voters breaking cleanly for McCain or Huckabee voters for Romney.
Giuliani voters actually split their second choice between McCain and Romney about 40-40. But Huckabee voters went for McCain as their second choice about 44 to 33%. That’s not surprising if you look at the returns. McCain won most pro-Huckabee counties, but not because Huckabee split the vote, but because McCain held his own (usually with between 30-40% of the vote) and Romney did poorly in these areas.
If you look at county returns, you’ll see that McCain is the Coca-Cola of GOP candidates, always performing at a consistent 30-40%, except in Miami-Dade (where he was higher thanks to Cubans) and any county that is both suburban and very conservative (which Romney’s cornered the market on — a good omen for Orange County). McCain does well in swing counties and liberal-leaning metro areas, but surprisingly, he doesn’t tank in rural, Evangelical areas. But Romney does. McCain seems to have a slightly greater affinity with Huckabee’s base than Romney does.
There is a message in these returns to conservatives busy soldering together the coalition below decks: do not assume that just because they’re all pro-life, that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham speak for the social conservatives Romney needs next Tuesday. They don’t. Being pro-life and pro-marriage is not enough. To understand what Huckabee voters want, you need to actually appreciate what Mike Huckabee brings to the table, which is an emphasis on faith, undiluted. Many conservatives, particularly those around here, do not. While many of us agree on the social issues, the conservative establishment resented how he injected his religion into the campaign. Never have I seen conservatives so readily repeat the Barry Lynn/ACLU line on the “wall” between church and state.
It’s instructive to study how George W. Bush united the conservative coalition eight years ago. He did so not as a Mitt Romney Republican but as a Mike Huckabee Republican. The only thing Bush offered fiscal conservatives was tax cuts. The rest was Catholic social thought. Say what you will about him, but Bush has never gone squishy on a single social issue in eight years. But has gone wobbly on fiscal issues, leading to a revolt in the conservative establishment. As Bush knew, and as we are re-learning with the rise of John McCain and the intransigence of Mike Huckabee’s base, fiscal conservatism is where the opinion leaders are, and social conservatism is where the votes are.
Mitt Romney is trying to unify the party as a business guy from Belmont who is culturally as far removed from Suwannee County, Florida as you can get. He’s going about it very clinically: vote for me because I’m not McCain. But I’m not sure that message holds much sway with an audience that takes its cues from Christian radio not News/Talk and certainly not National Review. And notice his message: it’s all about the economy, and nothing about Life and only a little bit about marriage. Christian voters have noticed.
Romney is pinning his hopes on brining in the social “leg of the stool.” But though they’re not wild about McCain, I’d venture that a plurality of these voters would rank Romney third.
Don’t mistake this post as siding with the Huckabee/SoCon analysis of the party. I’m simply analyzing it from a 30,000 foot perspective. And as one of those FiscalCons who’s now with Romney, what I’m seeing here is not effective coalition politics.
Specifically, it seems to me that the conservative establishment’s decision to go nuclear first on Huckabee (who never had a shot but speaks for voters we need in November) before McCain (who always had a shot but speaks mostly for himself) will rank as a pretty serious strategic blunder.
Tagged: conservatism 
mike huckabee mitt romney
Comments (12) 
Trackbacks (6) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Vote for Mittens “the Kitten” Romney and I promise every American will have a catnap.
Dr. James Dobson made clear last year that he will never vote for John McCain. Someone in his organization confirmed this again to a New York Times reporter the other day. Focus on the Family is an influential organization. If John McCain is the nominee I think a lot of Evangelicals will stay home and this November will be a dark one for the GOP. I voted for Mitt Romney here in Florida.
In rural America, the military is held in much higher esteem than corporate moguls. Pundits sneer at Mac’s “I fought for patriotism, not profit” line in debates, but this attitude puts him on the same page with folks who share his attitude…..and opens a bridge to the “big government conservatives” who might still be Democrats but for Roe v. Wade.
The Mitticians ought to have put their power points asides for an afternoon, cracked open a cooler, and listened to a country radio station…..which is going to put fightin, family, friends, the flag and God way ahead of marginal tax rates
“[F]iscal conservatism is where the opinion leaders are, and social conservatism is where the votes are” sounds right to me. Ramesh Ponnuru has made the case that it’s not conservative social positions that’s unpopular in the national electorate, but the economic policies. I can’t find the link biw, but I found it persuasive (and I say this as primarily an economic conservative).
Plus, I agree “vote for me because I’m not McCain” isn’t going to be enough. It wasn’t enough for Kerry in ‘04, and Republicans shouldn’t count on it being enough if Hillary is the nominee.
I agree with Ironman, above.
Also, a flaw in Patrick’s analysis is that Huckabee’s support is largely evangelical (as am I, though I support McCain), and many evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon for President, regardless of other factors. It is a show stopper.
Great analysis Patrick. I really appreciate the in depth look at county results. We don’t get enough of this in the blogosphere. And I keep running into people who think Huck voters are naturally going to Romney. While opinion leaders seem to think there is a large Anyone But McCain segment in the Republican Party, it doesn’t show up in polls. McCain has consistently had higher fav/unfavs among Rs than Romney has.
The one thing I think you left out of this analysis is that many voters don’t vote straight on issues. Huckabee is not only bringing religion, he’s bringing authenticity. He says what he means and seems very sincere. This is the opposite of Romney who always seems to be searching for what the audience wants to hear. Huckabee seems less of a politician than Romney. McCain is somewhere in between, but has more of a reputation as a “straight talker” than Romney.
Finally, I agree that Bush ran like Huck is doing. I think that’s why a lot of people (including myself) were so worried about him winning. He’d be running on the Bush platform in a year when Bush has 30-35% approval. The Independents who left the Rs in 2006 were not a lot of Bush Social Conservatives. They were moderate, fiscally oriented Republicans who tired of the War and the pork-barrel corruption.
I think McCain can win them back, I don’t think Huckabee could. Put otherwise, the 2000 coalition worked in 2000, but it would not work after 8 years of President Bush.
Huckabee voters are by and large snowed by his phony good ole boy BS.
He is a wolf in wolf’s clothing, but evangelicals are so unsophisticated politically all they see is another evangelical and to them his attire is pure lambs wool.
Only a country that has lost its mind would give the likes of Elmer Gantry 21% of the popular vote.
Well, I would have to say that while I am pro-life I was very offended by what I thought was Mike Huckabee’s crossing the line by calling himself a Christian leader. And I believe in his NY Times interview early on he displayed a sly bigotry:
“I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’ I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’
That’s why I committed to Romney and went to Iowa to GOTV for him. So he was unacceptable to me on 2 counts, fiscal and religious, and his initial foreign policy position was to the left of Obama.
Those of you criticizing Huckabee are anti-christian not just anti-Huckabee. Morally this country is going down the toilet. And it’s been eye-opening to see how many of my fellow republicans couldn’t give a damn.
I am an Iowa voter who voted for Huckabee. I would do so again anytime. Romney was my second choice. I chose Huck over Mitt because Mitt went ballistic and savaged Huck! He did not need to get nasty. Now, Huck is paying him back in his own coins!
If Mitt were not so arrogant, he would have had his people talk to Huck’s people rather than going nuclear in Iowa. That, I fear was the beginning of the end for Mitt!
This election is indeed an eye-opener! The Republican Establishment–and their talking heads-O’Reilly, Rush, Sean Hannity, Laura Inghram, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, etc-are responsible for this mess (I personally stopped listening or watching them). They like to use religion and religious people to get power but once someone who is truly religious tries to get power, they slam him. The liberal media was nicer to Huck than the conservative talking heads. I voted for Huck to spite the Republican establishment. Now I support Huck staying in the race to derail their attempt to impose Mitt on us. if McCain (my third choice) wins the nomination, so be it!
[…] Patrick Ruffini wrote an interesting post today on Intransigent Huck VotersHere’s a quick excerptthe “conservative” vote, defined as Romney + Huckabee, is splitting down the middle. Most polls down South look like McCain 30, Huckabee 25, Romney 25. We’ve seen how this played out in South Carolina, except there it was establishment … […]
[…] Bohemian wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptTo understand what Huckabee voters want, you need to actually appreciate what Mike Huckabee brings to the table, which is an emphasis on faith, undiluted. Many conservatives, particularly those around here, do not. … […]
[…] Patrick Ruffini wrote an interesting post today on Intransigent Huck VotersHere’s a quick excerpt The Romney campaign’s February 5th math is simple: move all the voters from the Huckabee pile onto theirs and claim a majority of conservatives. Unfortunately, it’s just not that simple. In the South — still more delegate-rich per capita than NY, CA, NJ, IL, etc. — the “conservative” vote, defined as Romney + Huckabee, is splitting down the middle. Most polls down South look like McCain 30, Huckabee 25, Romney 25. We’ve seen how this played out in South Carolina, except there it was establis […]
[…] “[I]t seems to me that the conservative establishment’s decision to go nuclear first on Huckabee (who never had a shot but speaks for voters we need in November) before McCain (who always had a shot but speaks mostly for himself) will rank as a pretty serious strategic blunder.” Share and enjoy, gentlemen: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
[…] February 2, 2008 in 2008, GOP, analysis, argument, campaign management, conservatism, election, election 2008, mitt romney, republicans, rhetoric, romney, strategy, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreasonTags: gov. mike huckabee, Marc Ambinder, negative attacks, negative campaigning, negativity, patrick ruffini, patrickruffini.com, Sen. John McCain, super-duper apocalypse tuesday, theatlantic.com “The Romney campaign’s February 5th math is simple: move all the voters from the Huckabee pile onto theirs and claim a majority of conservatives,” writes the estimable Patrick Ruffini, an “Ex-Bush aide/Giuliani aide/current Romney endorser,” as described by Marc Ambinder, in a blog burst titled Intransigent Huck Voters Unfortunately, continues Ruffini, it’s just not that simple. […]
[…] - De bezorgdheid over zijn kandidatuurblijft:valt de conservatieve coalitieuiteen?,,(…) it seems to me that the conservative establishments decision to go nuclear first on Huckabee (…) before McCain (…) will rank as a pretty serious strategic blunder. […]