While Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee "remains a distant fifth in New Hampshire, behind [Mitt] Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Ron Paul [and]... fifth in national polls," according to the Chicago Examiner, he's surging in Iowa, according to a ABC/Washington Post poll released November 21, conducted November 14-18:
Are we beginning to coalesce? ABC thinks so....
Key elements of the Republican base are coalescing around Mike Huckabee in Iowa, lifting this comparatively little-known candidate to the first rank in the first state to cast votes in the 2008 presidential contest.The surge for Huckabee is remarkable in size and intensity alike. He's attracted not just support, but enthusiastic support, from core Republican groups including conservatives, evangelicals and strong abortion opponents.
The change is notable, as well, for Huckabee's lack of advantage on most issues and personal attributes....
With sampling error, [Romney and Huckabee] are about even.
As with Romney, support for Fred Thompson... Rudy Giuliani... and John McCain... is flat. While tied with Thompson given sampling tolerances, Giuliani, the national front-runner, is numerically fourth in Iowa.
This was also in line with my observation at the FRC Washington Briefing that evangelicals were wary of Romney's Mormonism and newfound pro-life beliefs:
There was also this, the very last question on the poll, of, incidentally, "400 Iowan adults likely to vote in the 2008 Republican presidential caucus... [with]... a 5-point error margin" (click to enlarge):
Comments:
I look for Thompson to increase his standing here in Iowa over the next 6 weeks.
Posted by: Jim at November 23, 2007 8:12 AMMike Huckabee is really gaining momentum. He set a goal to raise one million dollars in the first 20 days of November and achieved that. Now he's shooting for two million by the end of the month. He's shown how efficient he is by ending up that close to Romney despite spending 33 times less money (don't remember the source). He needs donations, though!
Posted by: MCAnthony at November 23, 2007 10:49 AMOK, so, I'm an atheist. Can somebody explain to me in small words why evangelicals would not want to vote for Romney because he's a Mormon?
(The flip-flopping on abortion is a reason I understand. The Mormon thing, not so much.)
I vote for lots of people whose theology I don't share. :) I don't see the big deal, if they have acceptable positions on the issues that are actually the purview of government.
Posted by: Jen R at November 23, 2007 8:37 PMThis sort of reminds me of four years ago when there weren't many great Democratic candidates to choose from.
Although, I don't know why so many Republicans are going after Giuliani, he doesn't seem to represent very many of their ideals at all. Unless they're trying to appeal to Democrats, or 9/11 survivors, who knows? He's a terrible candidate, though.
Posted by: Edyt at November 23, 2007 11:02 PM"OK, so, I'm an atheist. Can somebody explain to me in small words why evangelicals would not want to vote for Romney because he's a Mormon?"
Jen R, here's an article regarding "the Mormon thing." Possibly it will shed some light!
Posted by: Net at November 24, 2007 9:05 AMYeah, I'm sorry, it doesn't really help. In fact, it seems to me that the article you linked could be used to make the case that the religion of the candidate is less important than what they will do in office:
"If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?"
To me, that suggests that if a candidate professes the "right" faith but would pursue policies that hurt the poor and weak, he's the wrong candidate.
Posted by: Jen R at November 24, 2007 7:02 PMThe interesting thing about Huckabee is that he hasn't got a ton of support from people with money. Candidates get money from people who think they will get a return on their investment. Since powerful people still only get one vote, they have to use marketing to get others to vote. Huckabee can't afford marketing, yet he attracts votes. It is interesting. Another truly good candidate is Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He isn't doing nearly as well despite accomplishments that leave H.Clinton, Obama and Edwards in the dust. He has executive experience just like Romney and Huckabee, but doesn't get noticed. It really surprises me.
Posted by: hippie at November 25, 2007 2:24 PMThe interesting thing about Huckabee is that he hasn't got a ton of support from people with money. Candidates get money from people who think they will get a return on their investment. Since powerful people still only get one vote, they have to use marketing to get others to vote. Huckabee can't afford marketing, yet he attracts votes. It is interesting. Another truly good candidate is Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He isn't doing nearly as well despite accomplishments that leave H.Clinton, Obama and Edwards in the dust. He has executive experience just like Romney and Huckabee, but doesn't get noticed. It really surprises me.
Posted by: hippie at November 25, 2007 2:24 PM
....................................
Bill gets plenty of notice here in NM. I'd love your thoughts on why you think he isn't getting notice around the country and what you find supportable about him. I am certainly considering him.