Mike Huckabee's Plan B

As I outlined in an earlier article, Mike Huckabee's original plan for capturing the Republican presidential nomination included a win in South Carolina. Obviously, that plan has now gone by the wayside. But does Huckabee have a "Plan B"? I believe he does and we will see it coming into play beginning in Florida.

As part of that plan, Huckabee is likely to discontinue campaigning in Florida well ahead of next week's primary. I believe his reasons are twofold. First, with limited resources in hand and Florida being a winner-take-all state, why would he want to spend a large portion of them there, only to finish second, third, or fourth and have no delegates to show for it? His money and time would  be better spent in states where he would have a better chance to win or at least come away with some delegates.

Second, if Huckabee feels that he cannot win Florida, it would be in his best interest to have Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney win it to keep the race wide open going into Super Tuesday. A win there by John McCain would effectively end the race and wrap up the nomination for him. If Huckabee were to stop campaigning in Florida, it is likely that many of his potential voters in the Sunshine State would switch to Romney, possibly throwing the state to the former Massachusetts governor. However, Huckabee's absence in Florida would probably not help Giuliani, whose potential voters are the polar opposite of those who lean toward Huckabee. Actually, a Giuliani win in Florida would be better for Huckabee than a Romney win. But a Giuliani win with Romney coming in second would be the ideal scenario for the former Arkansas governor.

On Super Tuesday and beyond, Huckabee feels that he can win all the remaining southern states. (By the way, Florida is not a true southern state anymore because of all its transplanted residents, mainly retirees, from the northeast corridor). But what gives Huckabee reason to believe he can win the remaining southern states when he couldn't win South Carolina? Well, because there were two things at play in South Carolina that won't be in the other southern states. First, there was Fred Thompson siphoning off social conservative votes. Thompson is now gone. Second, even with Thompson in the race in South Carolina, Huckabee still won a plurality of the votes of registered Republicans. Had South Carolina been a closed primary, he would have won it. Independent votes gave McCain his victory in the Palmetto State. However, in most of the remaining states in Dixie, Republicans hold closed primaries. 

Now, winning southern states alone cannot give Huckabee the GOP nomination. However, he could parlay those victories into wins in other socially conservative states (as least as far as GOP voters are concerned) from the Midwest and west. States like Alaska, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho come to mind. And didn't Pennsylvania once elect extreme social conservative Rick Santorum to the U.S. Senate and anti-abortion Democrat Bob Casey to the governor's mansion? That seems like fertile ground for Huckabee as well. Remember, he did win in Iowa, which no one considers to be a southern state.

Comments

[Quiverdaddy]

These are excellent points. However, as we discovered in Iowa, a good portion of Huckabee's campaign activities are ad-hoc activities by his supporters that happen under the radar.

He probably will not win Florida, but don't underestimate his supporters' ability to stir things up.

[Allen Fuller]

Duncan Hunter, Mr. Border Fence himself, endorses Huckabee, who is purported by many to be "Mr. Open Borders."

This is more proof that the conservative punditocracy, and their well-meaning followers who have not been paying attention for themselves, have been ALL WRONG on Huckabee.

The conventional wisdom is now firmly entrenched. Huckabee is a "liberal" or even a "socialist." People I trust (or used to trust) have latched onto this and have ceased to think further about it.

However, not all voters follow their supposed leaders. Huckabee won decisively in South Carolina among self-identified conservative voters.

I hope Duncan Hunter's endorsement will cause people to take a second look at Huckabee with an OPEN MIND.

Start with independent sources, not the usual opinionated sources you may consult. For example, OnTheIssues.org, which, although it doesn't make Huckabee look good on every point, it places Huckabee SQUARELY in the conservative camp. This is just based on his record and statements on the issues, not on hearsay and attacks.

Examining Huckabee's FULL record, and his current positions, show a solid conservative. After looking at all these, any honest conservative would be hard pressed to say he is liberal or socialist, though they may disagree with him on a point or two.

If a close examination shows he's conservative, many will still say "So what? I still don't see why I should support him over any other."

Here are some great reasons to support Huckabee:
- He is inspiring and positive
- He has BOLD ideas-- not just more of the same
- He is a great communicator
- He reaches the Reagan Democrats
- He can expand the Party
- He has good leadership skills
- He knows how to get people to work together on a common solution

These are all personal qualities which are hard to come by. If we don't nominate Huckabee, we will be missing a once-in-20-years chance.

[Phil Dillon]

I'm one of those Reagan Democrats who supports Mike Huckabee, for many of the reasons Allen Fuller cited in his comment.

I'm not sure what the outcome of the election will be for the Republican Party. The only thing that does seem certain to me is that if the G.O.P. continues to ignore the values voters and Reagan Democrats, its fate will be the same as that of the Democrats in 1980.