Lion of the Blogosphere

Lion predicts Mike Huckabee will win 2016 nomination, then lose to Democrat

This is one of my boldest predictions ever. After all, Mike Huckabee is a real longshot at online betting site, and of course he hasn’t even announced his candidacy or started doing things that candidates should do like courting rich donors.

The evangelical-Christian wing of the Republican Party gets stronger with every election (partly because they are scaring non-evangelicals away from the party). They want to elect one of their own. A True Believer which means someone who believes that the only means to Salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ. Jeb Bush is probably a secret Universalist who doesn’t believe that, which is probably why he switched to Catholicism, because it made his wife happy and he doesn’t believe it matters which religion you believe in.

The Christian Right is going to prefer Huckabee over many other frontrunners who are not evangelicals:

Rick Santorum: Catholic
Marco Rubio: Catholic
Jeb Bush: Catholic
Paul Ryan: Catholic
Jon Huntsman: Mormon
Rand Paul: Presbyterian (mainline Protestant, not evangelical) plus weird political beliefs

Likely evangelical front-runners have other problems:

Rich Perry: too stupid
Ted Cruz: too mean

Thus we are left with Mike Huckabee, a true Christian evangelical who has been pastor at a Baptist church and who does not come across as mean or stupid. Plus he has a well-polished public demeanor from his experience as pastor and talk-show host. He came across well in Republican debates in 2008. Having finished in second place in that election, this makes Huckabee as close to an heir-apparent as anyone else.

Although Huckabee can win the Republican nomination in 2016 because of the absence of a clear mainstream front-runner whose last name is not “Bush,” it goes without saying that Huckabee could never win the general election because he will turn off the non-religious, and for that reason the mainstream liberal media will go very easy on him and help him win nomination.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 13, 2014 at 11:56 AM

Posted in Politics

84 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. And after this defeat the Christian right will return to their manors in shame giving up politics altogether, giving the Republican party to the libertarians and leading to a libertarian victory in 2020?

    XVO

    January 13, 2014 at 12:18 PM

    • No way. Libertarians can’t connect to the White working class voters. The only reason they are kinda sorta popular now is because of the wars. If a “libertarian” does win it will be of the watered down, conservatism INC version. Radical fiscal conservatism is not popular.

      John Goldberg

      January 14, 2014 at 11:25 AM

  2. Hucklebuck let some black killer out of jail a few years ago and he killed someone. He let the killer out because he said he found Jesus. Better hillary.

    Bernie

    January 13, 2014 at 12:29 PM

  3. Anything’s possible….I think he got fat again, and according to your readers, women won’t vote for a fat guy, Churchill notwithstanding.

    BTW, Ariel Sharon just died. Didn’t women vote for him? Or are Israeli women honorary men?

    Diana

    January 13, 2014 at 12:30 PM

  4. Exactly what belief of Rand Paul is “weird”?

    ColRebSez

    January 13, 2014 at 12:36 PM

  5. I’m a Goldwater / Reagan Republican, and Huckabee scares me.

    No, not because of abortion, or because he would support nativity displays on public property, or stuff like that. It’s because he’s awful on immigration. LOTB points out that he’s smooth and polished, and that is what makes him dangerous. Bush 43 came off as a dumbass, endlessly repeating moronic platitudes like “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande”, whereas Huckabee comes across as reasonable and thoughtful, much more persuasive.

    If Huck is the nominee, he loses to Clinton. The only thing that keeps her from winning would be if they catch her in bed with a live girl or a dead boy, as the joke goes. Even that might not do it.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    January 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM

    • Agreed. Immigration is the first, second, fourth and fifth most important political issue in America. The third is the deficit. The sixth is fractional reserve banking. (Yes, all of these are promoted by the same finance powers.)

      Huckabee might be just the right sacrificial lamb for the media to serve up. He’s probably made a lot of insider media friends who will sucker punch him. They will promote him until he wins the nomination, and after that it will be all “Evangelical extremist – War on Wimmin” all the time. Who knows, maybe he even said the “N word” back in 1972 or something. At least they’ll find somebody who said he said it.

      peterike

      January 13, 2014 at 1:45 PM

      • You mean that immigration is important to YOU. As a political issue, it has not been very important. Abortion is the first, second, and third most important political issue as far as its real-world impact on politics.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 13, 2014 at 2:10 PM

      • But I’d bet it could be MADE important if the powers to be decided it should be.

        John Goldberg

        January 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM

    • “No, not because of abortion, or because he would support nativity displays on public property, or stuff like that. It’s because he’s awful on immigration.”

      From Rand Paul to John McCain, there’s not a single mainstream Republican and potential presidential candidate for 2016 who is good on immigration. Not one.

      The entire Republican elite, from Tea Party favorites to Gypsy moth moderates, is liberal on immigration. Mitt Romney was one of the few mainstream GOP candidates in the last decade who was at least willing to give lip service to immigration restrictionism. I doubt he was sincere, but we won’t even get that kind of lip service in the future.

      That’s why smart conservatives should be looking well beyond 2016. They need to rebuild the party. The conservatism of Goldwater and Reagan is dead; Long live conservatism.

      Pincher Martin

      January 13, 2014 at 2:14 PM

      • Ted Cruz:

        “Cruz’s influential stands against funding the Affordable Care Act and passing comprehensive immigration reform have made him a hero among conservative activists in Iowa, which hosts the first contest in the GOP presidential primary election.”

        CamelCaseRob

        January 13, 2014 at 5:39 PM

      • Cruz is good on immigration. Cruz doesn’t come across as mean and, anyway, any Republican can be painted as mean. He got high negatives from the government shutdown, but nobody remembers it thanks to Obamacare. He has time to improve his image.

        Lion, you forgot Scott Walker. He pleases Tea Partiers because he defeated public unions and his Midwestern demeanor gives him a presidential temperment. Unfortunately, he supports amnesty. But maybe he can be pressured to switch positions.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 13, 2014 at 5:59 PM

      • Both CamelCaseRob and The Undiscovered Jew are wrong about Cruz’s immigration stance.

        Cruz has been at best mixed on immigration. Mickey Kaus has the details:

        “I originally thought Cruz opposed amnesty and took a dive on the issue, doing the minimum possible to maintain his credibility. I now don’t think his behavior was that bad. It was worse–his very opposition to amnesty was fake. Evidence: The New York Times, in a bit of Anticipatory Strange New Respect, recently ran a piece on Cruz’s attempt to stake out “middle ground on immigration.” The middle ground seems to be support for legalization that stops short of citizenship… Cruz isn’t in opposition to Karl Rove on this one. He’s saying what Rove’s side wants to hear. He even defies logic in a way familiar to observers of pro-amnesty agitation–claiming that he opposes citizenship because the prospect of getting it “perpetuates illegal crossings.” As if the prospect of getting legal status–status that enables you to freely work and travel in the U.S. and lets your children be citizens–doesn’t make illegal crossing attractive.”

        Cruz can only be thought to be a immigration restrictionist based on the poor alternatives.

        Pincher Martin

        January 13, 2014 at 9:26 PM

  6. I disagree he can’t win.
    Watching his show on Fox, he doesn’t come across as a “liberals disgust me and don’t realize how stupid they are” type of conservative.

    WmarkW

    January 13, 2014 at 1:12 PM

  7. A little (just a little) off topic, but what do secular Jews and East Asians fear an evangelical Christian Republican would DO that is so off-putting to them? And don’t mention abortion as the court isn’t going to take away that right.

    CamelCaseRob

    January 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM

    • The right to abortion will DEFINITELY be taken away if enough evangelical Christians are elected, because that’s their number-one goal.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 13, 2014 at 2:14 PM

      • If Roe v. Wade were overturned, the issue would be sent back to the states. In places like CA, NY, and the like abortion would be legal and freely available. In states like Alabama, not so much.

        I disagree about evangelicals and abortion; nowadays gay marriage is much more important to them, and it still appears to them to be a winnable fight (it isn’t, BTW). If they were going to make abortion illegal, they would have done so already. Nobody wants to say so, but even evangelical women want abortion to be legal, so that if their daughter gets pregnant by the “wrong” boy, it can be dealt with.

        Sgt. Joe Friday

        January 13, 2014 at 3:16 PM

      • No. The goal of anti-abortion evangelicals is not to turn the issue over to the states, but to stop what they would call the killing of babies. Stop it everywhere in every state.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 13, 2014 at 4:03 PM

      • As time nears there will be a need to show a live abortion. Only it will be a grown person! To make the left happy, the right will use a BAC ! Removing the arms at the shoulders and the busting of the skull,sucking out the brain into a sink will make the a leftest happy! At the same time it will backfire on them. Only the sane will say “this must stop” and it will.The left be on their own to destroy themselves! Point being there is NO constitutional amendment that abortion is ok! The loony-left that sat on the Yankee high court were wrong, they did not interpret the Constitution! They took sides with murders. And may the Devil enjoy them.

        Hang'um

        January 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM

    • There is abortion, but there is also the mere existence of evangelicals that angers a lot of Jews.(Nothing against Jews here, just telling it like it is)

      John Goldberg

      January 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM

    • The Jews themselves are a small part of the overall electorate, the SWPLs, who think in a similar way to the
      Jews, are the bigger problem.

      John Goldberg

      January 14, 2014 at 11:36 AM

      • Correct: Jews are the same problem now as they were in 1936!! They have a sucking problem and Hitler had the final answer! Most folks don’t study long enough to get it..Hitler started cooking the Queer Jews first,as he should have..And this is what will happen here when war to cleanse ourselves comes. Gaybos,
        Lezbos and Negros must go. We are an Army of more than 40 million

        Hang'um

        January 19, 2014 at 11:52 PM

  8. I think your entire premise is wrong, Evangelicals are not getting stronger in the Republican Party. Quite the opposite. The Evangelical Right held sway in the Republican Party from Reagan through Dubya, but there aren’t as many as there used to be, and the Tea Party has ascended into power broker status in the Republican Party since then. The evangelicals are losing influence in the party, otherwise Santorum would have been the nominee in 2012.

    Mike

    January 13, 2014 at 1:59 PM

    • I agree. Evangelicals have been losing power over the last three decades. They are still a major force in the party and they put George W. Bush over the top in 2004, but they’re not nearly as powerful as they once were.

      But they still need to be respected. The GOP won’t win any national elections if social conservatives don’t feel they are a player in the party.

      Pincher Martin

      January 13, 2014 at 2:23 PM

    • The “Tea Party” is fake. It’s just a coalition, organized by conservatism INC, supported by evangelicals, and a minority of libertarians, who pretend to control it.

      John Goldberg

      January 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM

    • Mike, we don’t need a party! Not when we are already 40 million and counting! also very well armed.
      We will squash the loony left before they know what happen……………..

      Hang'um

      January 20, 2014 at 12:01 AM

  9. Lion is wasting time writing blogs such as this. Republicans are set to become obsolete and their constituents will fall by the wayside with them. Many people whom I know who were Republicans, are now voting for the Democrats, and strongly praise Obama for doling out for his subsidized healthcare plan for those who don’t have it. Some of their children have lost their jobs and were not able to secure full time perm work to get healthcare at a reasonable cost. Tough times bring out the best of the Republican turncoats.

    JS

    January 13, 2014 at 2:06 PM

    • The goal of this blog is not to get Republicans elected. If it were, yeah then the blog is a failure because no one reads it or cares about it and it has close-to-zero real-world influence.

      But if I had to list pie-in-the sky goals, it would be to eliminate immigration, roboticize the economy, provide better education for intellectually gifted students, and teach middle-class values in the schools to poor students

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 13, 2014 at 2:18 PM

      • To reach those goals, you’d have to eliminate the “all cultures are equal” philosophy that permeates American life. What current Republican politician is going to say that a future America made up primarily of third world peasants and ghetto dwelling blacks who never learned middle class values would not be a desirable condition? I could see a sudden shift, though, when things get worse. Communism looked like the wave of the future right up to the moment the Soviet Union collapsed. Things can change very quickly.

        Mark

        January 13, 2014 at 3:30 PM

    • “Many people whom I know who were Republicans, are now voting for the Democrats, and strongly praise Obama for doling out for his subsidized healthcare plan for those who don’t have it.”

      You’re lying, of course. You don’t know “many” such Republicans who are “now voting for the Democrats” because of Obamacare. I doubt you know a single one.

      Pincher Martin

      January 13, 2014 at 2:59 PM

      • Working class proles who live in the outer boroughs of NYC, voted mainly Republican, but many voted for de Blasio this past election. After being neglected by their party candidates for almost 2 decades, de Blasio cashed in and got many of their votes.

        Italian Americans whom I know, voted for Giuliani and Bloomberg, but decided on de Blasio this time around. They also praised Obama, because a few of their children are able to get affordable health insurance, after failing to secure long term employment, as the job market for recent college grads is in the doldrums. Most proles send their kids to prole schools with names like DeVry College, and not Harvard University. Can you blame them?

        I should have say some, and not many. Does that make you happy now?

        JS

        January 13, 2014 at 7:03 PM

      • JS,

        “I should have say some, and not many. Does that make you happy now?”

        You’re still lying. No significant group of self-respecting Republicans ever defected to the Democrats to support Obamacare. And it’s certainly the case today that Republicans are not defecting to the Democrats because of the ACA. Anyone who is telling you differently is feeding you a line of shit or is just one of those oddballs who like to sound contrarian with silly lines like, “I used to support Republicans, but then they got too conservative.”

        Not a single Republican elected official in either the Senate or the HoR voted for Obamacare – giving it the dubious distinction to be the only piece of major legislation I can ever remember that was passed on a strictly partisan vote. Social Security, Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, NCLB, etc., all passed with some fig leaf of bipartisan support. But not the ACA. Some Democrats defected to the other side to vote against Obamacare, but not a single Republican supported it.

        So exactly where all are these defecting Republicans coming from? Obama campaign literature?

        Pincher Martin

        January 13, 2014 at 9:14 PM

      • Huh? You don’t believe me and now you are asking me how Republicans can deflect to the Democratic party.

        I just told you. In NYC, working class proles who otherwise voted for Giuliani and Bloomberg, voted for de Blasio in this past mayoral election because they have been hard it under these tough economic times. How hard is that to understand?

        Do you not comprehend human fickleness and human irrationality? People will vote for candidates based on their race, their purported agendas and most important, their vision with the current economic climate, regardless of party line. Further, what under 40, late Gen X or Gen Y demographic votes Republican in large numbers?

        Here’s the NYC’s mayoral voting percentages of the different boroughs starting with Giuliani’s 2nd term. White voters who usually vote Democratic, were heavily Republican when Giuliani was mayor. Many of them reverted back to being Democrats during his final days in office, as NYC was beginning to become unaffordable to many of them, and the economy in the city began to decline after 9-11. NAMs of course will always vote Democratic.

        Red is heavily Republican and blue is Democratic, Pink is split 50/50.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_Mayoral_Election_1997_Results_by_Borough.svg

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_Mayoral_Election_2001_Results_by_Borough.svg

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_Mayoral_Election_2005_Results_by_Borough.svg

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYCmayoralelectionresultsbyborough2009.svg

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_Mayoral_Election_2013_Results_by_Borough.svg

        As gentrification and rising livings costs in NYC progressed under Bloomberg’s reign, things started to become unappealing to those White constituents where they began to deflect, and during his run for the 3rd term, he nearly lost to the Democratic Thompson. Bloomberg who was also very Manhattan centric, ignored much of the other boroughs where most of the working class proles live, who usually vote Republican in large numbers. When Joe Lhota was running for mayor under the Republican guise, he lost because his agenda was to continue Bloomberg’s policy and most of the proles were fed up already and decided to vote for de Blasio instead. Further, de Blasio is White, so he had an appeal to those proles, who would otherwise not vote Democratic, if the running candidate was Thompson, who is black.

        Notice Staten Island during de Blasio’s run, with its large Italian American population, who usually vote Republican, and Queens, with a large prole population who also vote Republican. Staten Island is pink, instead of a deep red, and Queens and its outlying areas are heavily Democratic. This proves my point that proles in NYC have been hard hit under their beloved Republican mayors, and voted de Blasio this time around.

        JS

        January 14, 2014 at 2:12 PM

      • Good post.

        Furthermore, de Blasio picked up votes from Italians in Staten Island because he’s Italian. Italians in NYC are very likely to vote for their own regardless of political party.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 14, 2014 at 2:39 PM

      • JS,

        “Do you not comprehend human fickleness and human irrationality?”

        I guess not, given that you began this discussion by claiming that former-Republicans-turned-Democrats are now praising Obama for the ACA, and you wish to now prove this absurd proposition by referring to some local election that had nothing to do with the ACA.

        We know from national polling that the ACA was always a nonstarter for Republicans. That was true back in 2010 when the ACA was first passed, but it’s even more true recently with the rollout of the legislation. Polling shows that even significant numbers of Democrats and the uninsured don’t like the ACA, and that Republicans are solidly lined up against it.

        Your recent post, though, clears up some things. You’re talking about New York City, which has its own peculiar politics that do not translate to the national scene. So you’re not really talking about former-Republicans-turned-Democrats, but more about former-Democrats-turned-local-Republicans who are now returning to the Democratic fold in local politics.

        Giuliani won his elections in large part because of crime and racial politics. Crime was a huge factor in New York City politics back in the early nineties when Giuliani first successfully ran for office. And he didn’t win by very much. But the city’s situation improved, and he was rewarded with a reelection victory.

        “No Labels” Bloomberg is not a Republican. He’s whatever he thinks will help him squeak out a victory. He started off as a Democratic, became a Republican when he saw an opening, and then when Republicans became unpopular he became an independent. So talking about his voters doesn’t really tell you anything about GOP voters.

        New York City has been a Democratic stronghold for my entire adult life. Hell, NYC voters gave Walter Mondale more than 61 percent of its vote in 1984, and McGovern took Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn in 1972. So the swings of local elections in Gotham tell you absolutely nothing about Republican voters and national issues.

        This discussion proves to me again that the most provincial people in the United States are usually New Yorkers.

        Pincher Martin

        January 14, 2014 at 5:34 PM

      • This discussion proves to me again that the most provincial people in the United States are usually New Yorkers.

        You asked me how could any Republican voter change sides to the Democrats. I told you it’s been happening in NY. And now, you call us provincial, because according to you, it’s only in NY where this happens.

        I bet you 100% that the proles in Alabama never vote blue in their red states. Last time I heard, Republicans are losing support everywhere.

        JS

        January 15, 2014 at 10:12 AM

      • JS,

        “You asked me how could any Republican voter change sides to the Democrats.”

        That’s incorrect. This was your line I was originally responding to:

        “Many people whom I know who were Republicans, are now voting for the Democrats, and strongly praise Obama for doling out for his subsidized healthcare plan for those who don’t have it.”

        What caught my eye was your belief that former Republicans, who are now voting for the Democrats, are “strongly” praising Obama for passing the ACA. You implied that their party switch came as a result of Obamacare.

        But when you explained your background, it became apparent that what you were probably seeing was Democratic proles in NYC, who temporally voted Republican in local elections because of high crime and racial politics, and then switched back to voting Democratic when those issues were no longer major concerns.

        Pincher Martin

        January 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM

      • Are you implying that voters, especially proles from other states do not switch party lines, because they show their utmost loyalty?

        Humans aren’t 100% rational, especially when it comes to the lower classes, and will do things out of immediate concern and convenience It safe to assume that people who are stuck being poor have a lower future time orientation, which keeps them in their perpetual state of poverty. Political candidates loving playing up to their needs and promise them the world. It seems like Democrats have been doing a great job at that. Not that the Republicans can’t, they just don’t seem to care as much.

        JS

        January 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM

      • JS,

        “Are you implying that voters, especially proles from other states do not switch party lines, because they show their utmost loyalty?”

        I’m stating that your implied claim that former Republicans turned Democratic because of their strong support for the ACA is bullshit.

        While it’s certainly probably that a handful of Republicans exist in this country who were lured over to the Democrats by Obamacare, there are too few of them on the ground for you to have met “many” of them.

        “Humans aren’t 100% rational, especially when it comes to the lower classes, and will do things out of immediate concern and convenience It safe to assume that people who are stuck being poor have a lower future time orientation, which keeps them in their perpetual state of poverty.”

        Yes, we call these voters Democrats. While it’s certainly possible that these people voted for Giuliani and Bloomberg in a local election, because of crime or some other local consideration, they were never Republicans. They were always enthusiastic about government helping them out.

        You seem to be repeating the Thomas Frank fallacy that class doesn’t matter in voting, and that these working class whites were really Republicans. They almost certainly were not.

        Pincher Martin

        January 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM

      • Reposted for clarity:

        JS,

        “Are you implying that voters, especially proles from other states do not switch party lines, because they show their utmost loyalty?”

        I’m stating that your implied claim that former Republicans turned Democrat because of their strong support for the ACA is bullshit.

        While it’s certainly possible that a handful of Republicans exist in this country who were lured over to the Democrats by Obamacare, there are too few of them on the ground for you to have met “many” of them.

        “Humans aren’t 100% rational, especially when it comes to the lower classes, and will do things out of immediate concern and convenience It safe to assume that people who are stuck being poor have a lower future time orientation, which keeps them in their perpetual state of poverty.”

        Yes, we call these voters Democrats. Some of these people might have voted for Giuliani and Bloomberg in a local election, because of crime or some other local consideration, but they were never Republicans. They were always enthusiastic about government helping them out.

        You seem to be repeating the Thomas Frank fallacy that class doesn’t matter in voting, and that these working class whites were really Republicans. They almost certainly were not.

        Pincher Martin

        January 15, 2014 at 2:51 PM

    • One way or another, the Republicans almost certainly will start winning again. It likely wouldn’t be the party that activists want, of course. But our system continues to strongly favor two parties, and unlike times past it’s become harder for an upstart to replace one of the existing two.

      trumwill

      January 13, 2014 at 3:27 PM

      • “One way or another, the Republicans almost certainly will start winning again.”

        Perhaps. But it’s not like the law of gravity. A single political party can dominate a large state for a long period of time, so I’m not sure why a single party can’t also dominate the country for a similarly long period of time.

        California, for example, has had two elected Republicans to a statewide office in the last fifteen years, and one of them was the independent Bloombergian Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was less a Republican than a celebrity. (The other was Steve Poizner who was elected to Insurance Commissioner in 2006 – an office no one cares about.)

        No conservative in this state expects this situation to change anytime soon. The Golden State was one of the birthplaces of modern conservatism, the home state of Ronald Reagan, and yet today a conservative can’t get anywhere near an elected statewide office.

        And when a new two-party equilibrium is eventually established again in the state (or in the country), we shouldn’t expect that the new Republicans will resemble what they looked like today.

        Pincher Martin

        January 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM

      • The reason why California remains a one-party state is that the California Republicans cannot adapt specifically for California politics because of the Texas Republicans. The Texas Republicans, on the other hand, have no reason to adapt because they’re not only successful in their own state but are part of a successful national party.

        If the Republican Party becomes irrelevant, they will do whatever they can to rectify that. Current arguments about “What’s the point in electing a Republican who sounds too much like a Democrat?” will hold less sway. The only question will be which Democrats they can pick off by modifying which of their positions? Which the California GOP can’t really do because they’re defined in part by the national GOP that can afford to blow off California and still remain competitive. But while they can blow off California elections, they can’t blow off national elections once they are no longer competitive nationally.

        trumwill

        January 14, 2014 at 12:12 PM

      • Trumwill,

        “The reason why California remains a one-party state is that the California Republicans cannot adapt specifically for California politics because of the Texas Republicans. The Texas Republicans, on the other hand, have no reason to adapt because they’re not only successful in their own state but are part of a successful national party.”

        A clearer explanation for why California turned blue, and Texas did not, is that white voters in Texas were, and are, more uniformly conservative than white voters in California. So the demographic changes that have happened in both states have affected California more dramatically.

        But changes will be coming to Texas if immigration continues at the same pace it has over the last there decades.

        My original point, however, was not to discuss what should be obvious to most readers of this blog, but to point out that Republicans won’t necessarily start winning again. They can go the way of the Whigs or they can change their politics so much that a Republican in 2024 doesn’t resemble at all what we see the GOP representing today.

        “Which the California GOP can’t really do because they’re defined in part by the national GOP that can afford to blow off California and still remain competitive. But while they can blow off California elections, they can’t blow off national elections once they are no longer competitive nationally.”

        That’s a sound point. But national political parties have died before, and even those which don’t die struggle for many presidential cycles before they become competitive again. As Keynes famously said, “In the long run we are all dead.” That line was not meant as a counsel to be patient.

        Pincher Martin

        January 14, 2014 at 5:48 PM

      • Texas vs California wasn’t really my point. I chose them because they’re the two biggest states firmly ensconced in one column or another. I could just as easily have used Alabama (in fact, I waffled between Texas, Alabama, and Idaho for the example).

        For a Democratic Party to maintain a one-party system, they’d have to please their disparate interests groups that are often in conflict with one another. We don’t often see the conflict because they have a common enemy: The presently viable Republican Party. If and when the day comes that the Republican Party is simply no longer viable, the members of the coalition that are losing the internal debate are more likely than not going to explore options outside of the party. (This doesn’t happen in California because we don’t do regional parties, and the second party unacceptable to disgruntled California Democrats.)

        The two basic ways this can occur is either by an alliance with the Republican Party, or breaking off into a new party entirely (most likely with various members of the current Republican Party). Historically, we’ve seen that happen with the Federalists and the Whigs. I believe that’s less likely now than then, however, due to the election dynamics we have in place as well as the financial instruments of elections. Which is why I think a reformulated Republican Party, as occurred when they were on the wrong side of the New Deal Coalition, is more likely than an upstart that unseats them. If worse comes to worse for the GOP, I’d put the odds at about 70% it’ll be the GOP, a 20% chance that it’s a Bullmoose Party or some other replacement, and a 10% chance that the Democratic Party itself fractures on its leftward side and the Democratic Party becomes the more conservative of the two major parties (and with influence from current Republicans that join it, more conservative than it presently is – though less conservative than the GOP).

        I’m spitballing the percentages, of course, but I do see the odds of a formulated GOP as being significantly higher than the other two combined.

        trumwill

        January 14, 2014 at 7:46 PM

      • trumwill,

        “For a Democratic Party to maintain a one-party system, they’d have to please their disparate interests groups that are often in conflict with one another. We don’t often see the conflict because they have a common enemy: The presently viable Republican Party. If and when the day comes that the Republican Party is simply no longer viable, the members of the coalition that are losing the internal debate are more likely than not going to explore options outside of the party. (This doesn’t happen in California because we don’t do regional parties, and the second party unacceptable to disgruntled California Democrats.)”

        Your reasoning is basically sound.

        But what caught my eye in your original post was your comment that “[o]ne way or another, the Republicans almost certainly will start winning again.”

        That may be true and yet still of little solace to any Republican today. New national political coalitions take time to form and cohere, and many current Republican political beliefs on government spending, immigration, taxes, social values, etc., might be a hindrance to this future coalition.

        In which case it won’t be just the “activists” who are unhappy with the new GOP, whenever it does get around to forming, but also most of the current party’s voters. Many of them will probably have to die off before Republicans start winning again.

        I don’t think most Republicans today are looking for that kind of victory.

        Pincher Martin

        January 14, 2014 at 9:06 PM

      • Haha no chance. Your best chance of Mitt Romney. SWPLs and immigrants will make sure that Hillary will win in a landslide against Christie or any other trailertrash bible thumpin wrong type of white people.

        Republicans are way too old and out of touch with millennials. Teabaggers have taken over the party and ensured the stereotype of anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-science redneck party.

        Gay marriage is legal, next is polygamy! Go equality!

        Progress

        January 14, 2014 at 9:57 PM

      • Pincher, I agree that the realignment I describe will make quite a few people unhappy. But people do adjust, and I suspect a fairly large number will. Those that are still alive, at any rate. I think the adjustment will take less time than it took Republicans to overturn the New Deal Coalition.

        For this discussion, I am stipulating something of a Worst Case Scenario, which I am not positive will be the case. I think the Democratic coalition is more fragile than a lot of folks do (they’re getting a lot of help from Republicans these days). Buf if it does hold, it’s going to be uncomfortable for a lot of people. That’s the cost of losing.

        Progress, I really have no idea what point you are actually trying to make.

        trumwill

        January 15, 2014 at 7:43 PM

    • Obamacare will be an unfolding disaster, we haven’t even gotten to the good part yet. Never let the voters forget it.

      Glengarry

      January 13, 2014 at 8:45 PM

  10. The Republicans have PR problems, plain and simple. They just don’t know how to package their message very well for wide, smooth, sound-bite consumption.

    The Democrats are the party of giveaways, so they’re more accustomed to the silver-tongued game of trying to please easily bought constituencies while also finding ways to package statements to alienate the fewest possible voters while also avoiding pitfalls like when Romney made his truthful, relatively innocuous “47 percent” statement.

    The GOP needs a total makever. Christie is the only GOP candidate out there who is smooth enough to master the media, which is a must considering their inherent love for empty PC platitudes and smoothly packaged promises.

    Camlost

    January 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM

    • The Republicans need to become intelligent populists and stop being white knights for big business that votes Democrat anyway.

      Glengarry

      January 13, 2014 at 8:49 PM

      • Yes, you said it much better than I did and with fewer words.

        Camlost

        January 13, 2014 at 9:31 PM

  11. I think Huckabee’s window was 2012 and it has since closed. He has a-ton of resistance from economic conservatives that make it hard for him to take off. If he won the nomination, his chances of winning would be roughly on par with the average nomninee. It all depends on what, if anything, has gone wrong for the Democrats. He might play better with midwestern whites than Romney did, though fundraising would be a challenge.

    trumwill

    January 13, 2014 at 3:23 PM

  12. Huckabee will not run. The GOP knows if they lose this they will never win again. They will probably go with the one who can have a shot of win. I don’t know who he will be , but he won’t be Huckabee.

    Colmainen

    January 13, 2014 at 3:24 PM

  13. The Lion is wrong on this post. If the GOP base is adamant about electing an evangelical, then they will nominate Ted Cruz. You should see how much Ted Cruz is worshiped in tea party & evangelical circles.

    The problem with Ted Cruz is he is so bombastic that he would lose in a landslide to any Democratic challenger in the general election.

    Jay

    January 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM

  14. My prediction is it is still Christie’s nomination to lose and that this will blow away in a few weeks and have no legs in the GOP primary. But he will still lose to HIllary.

    Bernie

    January 13, 2014 at 3:41 PM

  15. Santorum has demonstrated that he is effectively an evangelical, especially when it comes to many of their key values.

    The problem of course is that I don’t see any strong Democrats for 2016 either…

    JayMan

    January 13, 2014 at 4:23 PM

  16. Don’t forget Scott Walker. He’s socially conservative enough to please the Evangelicals, but unlike the other Republicans he could do very well among traditionally Democratic voters in Northeastern states fed up with high taxes, thanks to his stance against public employee unions.
    Besides, if elected he’d be the first president without a college degree since Harry Truman 70 years ago.

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    January 13, 2014 at 4:25 PM

    • An Ivy Leaguer has been president since 1989. Do you you really think that the U.S. will elect a drop out from Marquette University as president?

      superdestroyer

      January 14, 2014 at 4:56 AM

      • Come to think of it, when did the last good president leave office? (Sorry GWB I.)

        Glengarry

        January 14, 2014 at 9:32 AM

  17. Huckabee Hound pardoned a guy (Maurice Clemmons) who proceeded to execute 4 cops as they were enjoying their coffee. Huckabee’s “compassionate Christianity” and forgiveness for this con killed these cops. Clemmons is Huckabee’s Willie Horton, only far far worse: a 100 ton political albatross that’s PR gold for his opponents.

    Sanjuro

    January 13, 2014 at 5:18 PM

    • His fellow Republicans will be too scared to bring this up in the primary most likely.

      Bernie

      January 13, 2014 at 9:46 PM

      • The MSM, itching for a Huckabee victory, will launch the “racist” label against anyone who criticizes Huck for doing it, and Conservatism INC won’t dare to bring up the issue.

        John Goldberg

        January 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM

  18. lion, you are obsessed with predicting elections. and that tall building. and digital photography. and NAMs of course.

    rivsdiary

    January 13, 2014 at 5:22 PM

    • And the success or failure of the iPad.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 13, 2014 at 8:00 PM

      • Haha yeah that too. And that is why we love him.

        rivsdiary

        January 14, 2014 at 6:23 AM

      • All the time he invests in astrotheology sites has strengthened his third eye.

        toomanyspiders

        January 14, 2014 at 11:02 AM

      • Haha yeah that too. And that is why we love him.

        ‘Twas one of his finest moments.

        All the time he invests in astrotheology sites has strengthened his third eye.

        But his heart lies with status whoring. For the sheer joy of it.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 14, 2014 at 8:58 PM

  19. I’ll post this again here:

    Scott Brown would be an interesting choice. He’s one of the few moderate Republicans who would make a decent president and was a conservative enough to win over tea partiers, though he’ll have to flip on a few social issues. But as we know, POTUS has little control over culture.

    If he takes Jeanne Shaheen’s New Hampshire Senate seat in 2014 he could be a Senator and run for POTUS at the same time. If your him you’ve got nothing to lose when the field is this wide open. Another possibility is Senator John Thune.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    January 13, 2014 at 6:05 PM

    • I wanted Thune to run in 2012. If he runs (I don’t think he will) he’ll be a possibility to unite every wing of the party.

      Jeff

      January 14, 2014 at 1:55 AM

  20. The interesting thing about 2016 is there’s no clear next in line. The case could be made for Santorum, Perry, or Ryan. Perry is a bad joke, but he was the preferred candidate of big money last time (raised almost as much as Romney) so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a credible showing from him if he runs.

    Christie is getting called the front-runner, but you have to be next in line before you can win. Christie 2020…?

    The Christian Right doesn’t give a damn about denomination — they rallied behind Santorum last time. We already have Protestant Catholics; well, now we have evangelical Catholics. (Hell, most of my family is evangelical Presbyterian. Interesting times.)

    nydwracu

    January 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

  21. I notice that Huckabee doesn’t have an American flag in his lapel.

    jef

    January 13, 2014 at 7:18 PM

  22. LOTB is messin’ with the social-CONs. Ha HA Ha!

    Mexican Drug Cartel

    January 13, 2014 at 10:37 PM

  23. Mike Huckabee is “gutsy”, or just stupid as a pick. He is not running for President, but you are right, if he does, he has no chance to win the general.

    The Republican nominee will probably be a governor. So it will probably be Chris Christie, Scott Walker, or John Kasich. Christie has been damaged, and his flip flop to the left on immigration (supporting in state tuition for illegal aliens) is a disqualifier for many conservatives. I could see him being like Guiliani – never catching fire in Iowa or New Hampshire.

    Walker is a possibility- sketchy on immigration, stood up to the unions. It’s true that nobody is great on immigration in the 2016 field; conservatives didn’t appreciate Mitt Romney as much as they should have on the issue. Rubio is terrible, Bush is terrible, Christie is terrible, Ryan is terrible. I will NOT support any of them. Rand Paul is all over the map, Cruz is only good by the standards of this pathetic field – but at least both voted against the Senate bill.

    Kasich is an interesting under the radar possibility. If he wins re-election, he’s a two term governor of the most important electoral state in the country (Ohio). We NEED a candidate who can win working class Midwesterners for the GOP to win. Kasich (or Walker) could be the man for the job.

    2016 is a winnable election for Republicans if they learned their lessons from 2012. Unfortunately, I don’t yet see that they have.

    Jeff

    January 14, 2014 at 2:09 AM

  24. There is no way that the U.S. is going to elect a graduate of Ouachita Baptist University. The U.S. does not vote for non-Ivy Leaguers. The problem for the Republicans is that the leadership has been so incompetent that 95% of the Ivy League graduates are Democrats.

    superdestroyer

    January 14, 2014 at 4:57 AM

    • I said he would lose the election, but he can win the nomination because one-third of Republican primary voters will automatically vote for him because of his religious beliefs, and thus he only has to convince a quarter of the rest of the primary voters, and he’s much more polished and likeable than any other evangelical candidate.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 14, 2014 at 7:21 AM

  25. This is called trolling, isn’t it? Well done!

    It will be either Ted Cruz or Scott Walker. Ted (and by the way, to every conservative lawyer in the DC area between the ages of 25 and 50, he’s “Ted”: we all know him) is the 2nd most likely candidate. He will play better with women than the NY Times can possibly imagine. He’s overtly Christian; his Christmas card, which I, along with 10,000 of his closest friends received, quotes the New Testament, but he wears it lightly. Track down a video of him criticizing Democrats for accusing Republicans of waging a war on women. He mocks the idea that Republicans oppose birth control. He says something to the effect of, I have two daughters, I love them very much . . . and I’m glad there are just two of them. Huckabee would never say that sort of thing. Also his wife is very successful–an I-banker at Goldman or something like that. That will play well with some segments, and totally defuse the claim that he’s a Republican who wants to keep women down.

    But the buzz lately is Scott Walker. A smart and tough governor who play well with blue-collar types but without Christie’s baggage.

    A Tired Father

    January 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM

  26. Another troll, and another score by the Lyin’! There he goes again, saying something absurd just to get attention. And it works every time, don’t it, Lyin’?

    dquon

    January 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM

    • Why be insulting like that?

      CamelCaseRob

      January 14, 2014 at 12:27 PM

  27. Huckabee is a bad prediction. I hope you’re not putting money on this anywhere. Hell, bloomberg has a better chance at the nomination than Huckabee. Rubio is a snoozefest, he won’t be the nominee either. If I were betting I’d say christie because he’s interesting and gets people riled up, and there’s nothing worse than a boring candidate. A cnn article yesterday about the new “scandal” concerning tourism money had 30,000 comments the day it was published. That’s a lot of comments, even more than the lion garners.

    toomanyspiders

    January 14, 2014 at 10:56 AM

  28. I can’t make a prediction. I know that in 2008 most Republican Primary voters didn’t want McClain and yet we wound up with him. I expected some sort of repeat in 2012, but apparently the rules had been changed because no one locked up the nomination early (unlike 2008). It really all comes down to the rules. What I do know is that both the socons and the paleocons and the economics-only Republicans are all happy with Cruz and he SHOULD be the nominee. He wouldn’t win the general election, but then I believe no Republican can win anymore.

    CamelCaseRob

    January 14, 2014 at 12:32 PM

  29. “The evangelical-Christian wing of the Republican Party gets stronger with every election (partly because they are scaring non-evangelicals away from the party). “

    I don’t know that I buy that. I’m not religious and I’m not scared. Then, again, I’m not prejudiced against religion. Living in the Bay Area taught me that the absence of religion doesn’t mean less radicalism but more. If anything, religion keeps the radicals in check.
    *
    *
    Candidates always play to the base trying to get the party nomination. Once they get it they move towards the center trying to win the election. What gets the nomination isn’t the same as what wins the election. If one’s favorite candidate can’t win the election then it may be better that another candidate get the nomination.

    I’m not an expert on the new crop of candidates — not only do I not have a TV I’m not even in the country most of the time — but I’m surprised to hear you champion Christie then turn around and say Cruz is too mean. He doesn’t strike me as “mean” and I haven’t heard anyone say he was.

    destructure

    January 15, 2014 at 7:11 PM

  30. Interesting. Since Christie seems unlikely to be the nominee and no one that Lion likes seems to be running, he’s settling on a scenario where the Republicans go down to disaster in 2016 because the Christian Right takes over the party and forces the nomination of an unelectable movement purist. I think what he’s really doing is hoping that the Christian Right will forever destroy its political effectiveness with this move and then he and the socially liberal secular Republicans can rebuild the party after that.

    The problem with this scenario is that the CR has been in politics for 33 years and has NEVER bolted the party or cost the party victory in a presidential election by insisting on a radical-right nominee. It’s true that they are hungry for political victory after the McCain and Romney loses, but Lion’s scenario would be a very dramatic change for them. and I think they’d be too scared to try it. However, if they wanted to try something different they could try deciding on a consensus type of social conservative (John Thune, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal) and then pressuring that person to enter the race. Rallying around one candidate will be easier then and the CR vote will be maximized.

    Lion’s analysis of the media desiring a radical-right nominee for the Republican party in order to assure a Democratic victory is interesting, but questionable. There is no history of the Republicans losing the presidency because they nominated someone too far to the right. Goldwater is not really an example because most of the social issues we have had since 1968 were not issues in 1964. The media doesn’t really want a very far-right nominee because if this person won the election that would move our politics to the right. What they really want is a sort of moderate to socially liberal Republican who will lose by a fairly close margin. This way when the Republican loses they can still score points by saying that this moderate Republican lost because he had to cater to social conservatives. It’s a win-win for the media.

    MaryK

    January 15, 2014 at 10:39 PM

  31. All of that being said ! Let’s get it on, Wherever theirs good cleansing that needs to be done. Lets do it!

    Hang'um

    January 20, 2014 at 12:07 AM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: