Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“What do you do with a candidate like Huckabee?” Pt. 4 [Karl]

Rick Lowry points out that — despite the establishment media’s effort to portray Mike Huckabee’s campaign as a new populist force in the GOP — Huckabee has so far failed to gain meaningful support outside evangelical Christians.  This dynamic, particularly Huckabee’s difficulty with Catholic voters, was a topic of discussion of discussion here well before the Michigan primary.  That Huckabee does about as well with non-evangelicals as Ron Paul should be an eye-opener.  (Update:  Jay Cost breaks down the numbers on this topic from a recent Pew poll, for those who like tables and charts.)

Lowry also opines on Huckabee’s inconsistencies, writing that “His campaign has specialized in sanctimony layered on top of disingenuousness, low demagoguery and policy incoherence.”  Again, this has been a focus of prior discussions here at PW.

At The Atlantic, Ross Douthat argues:

His current wave of unsavory South Carolinian pandering – on illegal immigration, on the Confederate flag – looks like an increasingly-desperate attempt to appeal to a broader Joe-Sixpack constituency, but even if it works in the short term (and it probably won’t) it’s likely going to ensure his marginalization in the long run, by depriving him of the favorable media coverage that was part of his initial success.

Should Huckabee lose in South Carolina, his media coverage may dry up due to the economic constraints on the media as it tries to cover multiple candidates in both parties on Super-Duper Tuesday.  Otherwise, the establishment media would be glad to inflate his importance, for the establishment media loves a narrative of Republicans In Disarray.

Update:  Bob Krumm looks at the numbers and suggests that Huckabee is losing support among evangelicals and non-evangelicals.  This overlooks that Iowa was a caucus; his numbers in the NH and MI primaries are only a few percent apart.

Update x2:  Slublog catches another choice Huckabee flip-flop and e-mails it to HotAir.

Update x3:  The Worldwide Standard notes Huckabee’s Yahoo! “Buzz Score” is tanking in South Carolina in a post on a potential predictor for success in state primaries.

(h/t Memeorandum.)

24 Replies to ““What do you do with a candidate like Huckabee?” Pt. 4 [Karl]”

  1. Dan Collins says:

    Okay, Karl. So, I’ll comment on your post if you’ll comment on one of mine.

  2. Cowboy says:

    I hate political pandering and hypocrisy–especialy when the politician is holding a bible in his hand.

  3. The Ouroboros says:

    What do you do with….?

    Well, if he keeps on with the “I’ll deport every stinkin one of them illegals as soon as you elect me..” talk I’m guessing it WONT be ‘Call him Mr President’..

    Otherwise he seems like a decent guy…

  4. happyfeet says:

    I think that we’re at Pt. 4 is kind of importance-inflating too though. Also I’m running out of good vitriol.

  5. Dan Collins says:

    Buy that man a six pack.

  6. Karl says:

    happyfeet,

    It is slightly inflating, but it’s Friday, so why not pat yourself, Ric Locke, et al. on th back for beating the media to the punch?

    ;-)

  7. McGehee says:

    Mike Huckabee is not merely “not ready for prime time.” He’s not ready for a Saturday-morning cartoon time slot.

  8. JD says:

    Come on, happy ! Your diabtribes against the Huckabeast are legendary. Especially the kids.

  9. JD says:

    Maybe SNL making fun of himself …

  10. iron grampa says:

    Mike Huckabee? Mike huckabee is, or would be, Jimmy Carter lite.

  11. rmyers says:

    Any chance you could defend this assertion?

    “Otherwise, the establishment media would be glad to inflate his importance, for the establishment media loves a narrative of Republicans In Disarray.”

    Or, are we just supposed to take the “liberal media” canard on face value?

  12. McGehee says:

    Or, are we just supposed to take the “liberal media” canard on face value?

    Tell me, if someone says, “Water flows downhill,” do you challenge them to defend the assertion, or do you draw upon your own observations?

    And if you haven’t observed water flowing downhill, how is that the fault of the person who asserts that it does?

  13. Squid says:

    rmyers,

    There exists within the archives of this site enough material showing enough evidence of the “liberal media” to fill three books. If you’d like to remain unconvinced, that’s fine, but those of us who’ve been around a while don’t need to be given the entire body of evidence in each new post.

    To paraphrase the bumper sticker, “If you’re not disgusted, you’re not paying attention.” Or maybe, “If their rep is shit, you must acquit.” I can never remember.

  14. rmyers says:

    McGehee, did Chris Matthews say he hated a) Hillary Clinton or b) any Republican. Have members of the media described themselves as a) “John McCain’s” base, or b) “any Democrat’s” base.

    There have been ten presidential elections in the last forty years in this country and the “liberal media” bs has really stopped Republicans from winning 7 of those. Must be terrible to win only 70%, despite the crushing burden of “Republicans in disarray” meme.

    PS Let’s not forget, Republicans are in disarray. Three primaries/three different winners. Must be all the media’s fault.

  15. I grew up in a small town way back in the piney woods of upstate South Carolina. Huckabee’s pandering about “fried squirrel” probably set the whole town laughing, if they were paying attention. They’d be more likely to vote for Giuliani than him.

  16. JD says:

    rmyers is about as insightful as timmah, steve, and caricature. The 70 percent number should be an embarassment for the Dems. but fortunately, they do not learn so well. The fact that a small cable network threatens the big 3, cnn, msnbc, etc … is quite telling.

    Just because they are not as socialist as you does not make them not liberal, or anywhere close to conservative.

  17. Enoch_Root says:

    Next thing he’ll tell us is that Obama is a black man and hillary is a women and then they’ll start that “we’re making history” meme. I mean, other than the inconveniences of say Powell, Rice, and that one right-wing black guy sitting on the supreme court.

  18. Pablo says:

    PS Let’s not forget, Republicans are in disarray. Three primaries/three different winners. Must be all the media’s fault.

    No, they’re not in disarray, they’re deciding. For the first time in ages, there is no incumbent (POTUS or VP) to get behind, and so they’re shopping. You want to see disarray? Look back to ’04 and a party in such a mess that they nominate a candidate most of them hate and watch him lose to the only thing that unites them – a guy they hate even more.

    Want to see more disarray? Look at the Dem controlled congress which has utterly failed to even make a substantial attempt at doing any of the things they ran on and also finds itself losing to – a guy their base absolutely hates.

    Other than screaming “CHANGE!11!eleventy!!” and trying to decide which identity candidate they want, what gives you any impression whatsoever that the Dems have got their shit together in any fashion at all? “The woman or the black guy?” is not a terribly compelling political choice.

  19. Karl says:

    AMERICANS SLAM NEWS MEDIA ON BELIEVABILITY

    Americans see:

    *Growing media attempts to influence public opinion and policies
    *Poor quality
    *A strong liberal bent in most media
    *Fox News, CNN and NBC as the most accurate

    A Sacred Heart University Poll found significantly declining percentages of Americans saying they believe all or most of media news reporting. In the current national poll, just 19.6% of those surveyed could say they believe all or most news media reporting. This is down from 27.4% in 2003. Just under one-quarter, 23.9%, in 2007 said they believe little or none of reporting while 55.3% suggested they believe some media news reporting.

    “The fact that an astonishing percentage of Americans see biases and partisanship in their mainstream news sources suggests an active and critical consumer of information in the U.S.” stated James Castonguay, Ph.D., associate professor and chair of SHU’s Department of Media Studies & Digital Culture. “The availability of alternative viewpoints and news sources through the Internet no doubt contributes to the increased skepticism about the objectivity of profit-driven news outlets owned by large conglomerates,” he continued.

    The perception is growing among Americans that the news media attempts to influence public opinion – from 79.3% strongly or somewhat agreeing in 2003 to 87.6% in 2007.

    And, 86.0% agreed (strongly or somewhat) that the news media attempts to influence public policies – up from 76.7% in 2003.

    Americans surveyed provided poor ratings for the national news media on six different characteristics measured. The average overall positive rating across all six characteristics measured was 33.4%. The highest positive rating, 40.7%, was recorded for quality of reporting followed by accuracy of reporting at 36.9% and keeping any personal bias out of stories (33.3%).

    Other low positive ratings included: fairness (31.3%), presenting an even balance of views (30.4%) and presenting negative and positive news equally (27.5%).

    “Americans know bias and imbalance when they see it and they don’t like it. When most service organizations strive for consumer satisfaction ratings in the high eighties to low nineties, an overall positive rating of 40.7% is dismal,” said Jerry C. Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute. He added, “Americans know that it’s just not that hard to present both sides and keep personal bias at home.”

    By four-to-one margins, Americans surveyed see The New York Times (41.9% to 11.8%) and National Public Radio (40.3% to 11.2%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.

    By a three-to-one margin, Americans see news media journalists and broadcasters (45.4% to 15.7%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.

    And, by a two-to-one margin, Americans see CNN (44.9% to 18.4%) and MSNBC (38.8% to 15.8%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.

    Just Fox News was seen as mostly and somewhat conservative (48.7%) over mostly or somewhat liberal (22.3%).

    The most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, in declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%).

    In 2003, CNN led Fox News on “trust most for accurate reporting” 23.8% to 14.6%.

    ***

    How the Poll Was Conducted
    The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute completed 800 interviews with residents nationwide between November 26 – December 5, 2007. The sample was generated proportional to population contribution in all 50 states. Statistically, a sample of 800 completed telephone interviews represents a margin for error of +/-3.5% at a 95% confidence level.

  20. Karl says:

    BECAUSE OF TEH CANARD!!!

  21. Blind Howling Moonbat says:

    “A Sacred Heart University Poll blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah…….

    CHRISTIANIST!

  22. McGehee says:

    Um, rmyers, there is only one voting bloc more loyal to the Democrats than African-Americans: members of the Establishment Media. You may be too young to remember the surveys that found they were slightly more likely to vote for Bill Clinton than his own mistresses.

  23. Karl says:

    I think McGehee is referring to the Freedom Forum survey, which is one of many such polls.

    BECAUSE OF TEH CANARDINESS!!!

  24. B Moe says:

    ““The idea that we would set out, consciously or unconsciously, to put some kind of ideological framework over what we’re doing is nonsense,” NBC’s Tom Brokaw similarly declared on C-SPAN just a few days later, on May 24, 2001.”

    Who can tell me why this statement is so funny?

Comments are closed.