The Occasional Observer

ManBeast has called for us to restate where we stand, and I will do so in a somewhat roundabout fashion.

Mitt has, until recently, remained my number one choice, b/c of all the candidates with a realistic chance to win the nomination (sorry MB, I've got to leave Hunter out), he seems the most likely to unite the FiCon and SoCon wings of the GOP and avoid a 3rd party candidate.

By contrast, Rudy alientates SoCons and could lead to a disastrous 3rd party run from someone like Alan Keyes (2% of the vote could still kill us), or more dangerously, someone like Sam Nunn.

That said, there have been 6 debates at this point, and Rudy, along with Huckabee and McCain, have clearly been the strongest performers.

The debates will be crucial for defeating Hillary. She will have endless resources to define herself via advertising, and the debates will be the best opportunity to expose her as shrill, ideological, and canned. We need a candidate who is articulate and capable, but also genuine and not a professional politician like Hillary. It is on this last point where Mitt has most disappointed me in the debates, as he appears very coached and trapped within his talking points. Huck, Rudy, and McCain are a true contrast, and speak their mind.

McCain has really rehabilitated himself in my mind by doing two things: (1) admitting that he "got the message," and supports sealing the borders before getting around to any kind of work visa amnesty program; and (2) showing real consistency and courage in his call for victory in Iraq (and his earlier criticism of the Rumsfeld "light footprint" approach). Because McCain has credibility in the eyes of independents and moderates, he also polls the best against Hillary, as the most recent FN/Dynamics poll showed. And unlike Rudy, he has a 20+ year track record of voting pro-life.

Huckabee is an intersting case. He has consistently shown himself the most effective communicator of the entire group. He's won most of the debates, and constantly wins over the crowd when he gives speeches. This past weekend's values voters straw poll was a case in point. After all the GOP candidates spoke, Huckabee took over 50% of the votes from those in the room. Meanwhile Mitt won the straw poll on the back of a smaller plurality voting for him in the online voting.

Huckabee has no resources. Could he compete with Hillary in the general? It's questionable. But Huck would solidify the GOP in the south and the upper midwest, and his blue collar outlook will play well in swing regions like MI, OH, and western PA. Huck will not be able to compete in CA, NY, and New England, so his cap would be Bush's cap on EC votes, but that's enough to win.

Huckabee is the kind of guy who could lose in a landslide. Clinton could paint him as a religious extremist and hammer him as a redneck hick. Let's not forget, the Clinton's don't play nice and their warchest is bursting at the seams.

But then again, Huckabee could prove to be a revolutionary force at the national political level. He's shown me that kind of natural ability. He could totally refashion the GOP brand, and turn the party into an economically moderate, socially conservative populist party that could remake the political map.

I guess the way I look at it right now to boil it down:

-McCain is the conventional play who I'd be comfortable with.

-Mitt's an acceptable candidate who has resources, but is not inspiring me right now.

-Huckabee is an against-all-odds underdog story who is proving himself the most capable campaigner by a mile, and with an idelogical outlook that matches my own to a tee. He could also refashion the GOP brand in a way that would help the party long- term. Huck meets the baseline requirement of viability b/c he's in second place in the most recent IA polls and withing shooting distance of Mitt. If you can win IA, you're viable.

-Rudy is an extremely effective campaigner, a typical FiCon Republican, and a guy I'd vote for in the general. I can't support him in the primary b/c his views on life are unacceptable.

-Fred is a good guy, but a horrible candidate.

-Hunter/Paul/Tancredo are not viable, but Hunter has an outside chance of winding up as someone's Veep (which I'd love).

My current top 3, all of whom I would enthusiastically support:

1. Huckabee
2. McCain
3. Romney

Fred will get killed in the general. Rudy would be effective in the general, but I'd have to hold my nose in pulling the lever.

I totally leave the door open to changing the order of my top 3, based on whichever candidate has the most likelihood of derailing Rudy come the NY primary. The open questions that will determine who I vote for on Feb 5th:

- does Huck's viability continue to grow? His national and state polling numbers have been improving. Does that trend continue through January? Does he win IA? If so, he becomes the front runner in SC and should at least compete in MI in NH. If Huck has a couple of wins under belt by the time of the national primary, he's got a strong chance of going head-to-head with Rudy even after rudy takes the big states on Feb 5th. If Huck is still viable, he'll have my vote.

- If Huck stalls, does McCain generate momentum? McCain lives and dies with one state: NH. He needs to top Mitt in NH. If he doesn't he's over. If he does, he becomes the front runner in MI and he'll have a chance to win in SC. If McCain wins NH + SC, then he'll still be viable come Feb 5th, and he'll get my vote.

- If Mitt wins in IA and NH, McCain's been eliminated. Huckabee could still be alive with strong 2nd place finishes in either or both. SC then becomes the decider. If Mitt can top Fred and Huck in SC after having won IA and NH, he'll have consolidated the conservative vote as the anti-Rudy, and he'll be the only real alternative.

Of course, after Florida, we'll know the lay of the land, at which point final decisions get made.