ACORN'S Layers: Mullis Was Right

Charles Jackson and the management of ACORN released a statement today that seemed to mock a Georgia State Senator. Not only does ACORN treat the poor with wanton disregard but now it seems that elected officials are also treated with disdain.


"Senator Mullis indicates his ignorance by calling for revocation of ACORN’s tax-exempt status; the organization does not have such status.”


Sentator Mullis was correct in calling for ACORN's tax exempt status to be revoked because it does have one, it just happens to be registered in the name of Project Vote. Civil RICO charges filed on January 7, 2009 allege what the liberal voter registration world has known for years. The complaint details a report done by ACORN's own lawyer Elizabeth Kingsley. The complaint also quotes part of the document that was leaked to the New York Times.


"But Ms. Kingsley found that the tight relationship between Project Vote and Acorn made it impossible to document that Project Vote’s money had been used in a strictly nonpartisan manner. Until the embezzlement scandal broke last summer, Project Vote’s board was made up entirely of Acorn staff members and Acorn members.

Ms. Kingsley’s report raised concerns not only about a lack of documentation to demonstrate that no charitable money was used for political activities but also about which organization controlled strategic decisions.

She wrote that the same people appeared to be deciding which regions to focus on for increased voter engagement for Acorn and Project Vote. Zach Pollett, for instance, was Project Vote’s executive director and Acorn’s political director, until July, when he relinquished the former title. Mr. Pollett continues to work as a consultant for Project Vote through another Acorn affiliate."

Oddly enough this same group continues to act as if nothing is amiss and that its staff are not facing criminal charges and Erisa Violations, of course this is on top of the charges of civil rights violations. ACORN's response: hold a vigil on civil rights in Arizona. The audacity of criminals is amazing to me and I have evidence and testimony to support Senator Mullis's claims.

During my tenure at Project Vote from 2005-2008 I personally witnessed that :

  • Project Vote violated its 501 (c) 3 status since its inception by using government and private grants that ultimately go directly or indirectly to ACORN for partisan purposes.

  • ACORN, Project Vote and Citizen Services Inc. (CSI) are the same organization with different tax designations that are used to facilitate the transfer of money between the organizations Direct and Indirect knowledge

  • ACORN has promoted a culture of dishonesty motivated by reaching target Voter Registration goals and senior staff have portrayed an attitude that allows for some “bad” cards in order to reach these goals

  • As of January 2008, Karyn Gillette, Project Vote Development Director, Jeff Robinson, and Nathan Henderson James, Project Vote Research and Political Director are all employed by CSI-Citizens Services Inc- and may have worked directly with anyone seeking the services of CSI and money paid to CSI would have obvious ACORN ties.

  • Karyn Gillette provided list obtained from the Kerry, Clinton,and Obama campaigns, as well as the 2004 DNC donor lists. These lists were shared with the Political directors of roughly 12 ACORN battleground states in order to raise money for a $28 million dollar ( number as of 11/2007) voter registration drive.

  • ACORN and Project Vote have used CCI to transfer money between the organizations and may be guilty of violating RICO statues

Not only should ACORN's “feeder” organization Project Vote have its tax exempt status removed but as the civil RICO complaints details, there should be intense federal investigations.

In a memo entitled Thinking Ahead: Potential Political Operations Priorities & Projects 2007 – 2008 dated 11/22/06, Project Vote Executive Director Zach Polett stated the following goals

  • Develop strategies for using politics and our political work to support ACORN's organizing, growth, and membership representation agendas -- with particular focus on municipal and state elections

  • Build a relationship with the Administration that will take office in January 2009

  • Have CSI play a major field role in the general election and, possibly, in the primaries.

  • Congressional District Strategy: Develop a plan, for 2007 implementation and funding, that targets organizing, communications and political work in a set of marginal CDs that changed party in the 2006 election. [Also develop list of seats in which current party holds a seat that went the opposite way in the last presidential election – these will contain a number of seats likely to be closely contested in 08.]"

Not only is it clear that 501(c)(3) money was being spent with partisan goals in mind, its seems that it was an accepted part of Project Vote strategy. Mr. Polett goes on to explain how to bring in profit from candidates by with CSI (Citizen Services Inc.)


Expand our CSI campaign consulting business


A) Develop CSI as a profit center for the work of Political Operations.

B) Expand ACORN’s power and reach by creating the in-house capacity to deliver political capacity when it’s needed: managing ballot measure campaigns; collecting signatures; running large electoral field campaigns; running campaigns of local candidates for office; conducting grasstips lobbying campaigns; etc.


A) Write a business plan for CSI, including marketing plan and pricing plan.

B) Identify or hire a Managing Director for CSI’s external business.

C) Identify a list of potential funded ballot measure campaigns that CSI should pursue for full-service and/or signature collection management contracts.

D) Identify a list of 2007 and 2008 candidate campaigns that CSI should pursue for contracts and relationships.

Amazingly the final goal in the memo involves something that clearly relates to recent election chaos.


“Secretaries of State: Identify 2007 and 2008 Secretary of State races in which we should play, with the goal of getting responsible, pro-voter, competent people in these offices.”


ACORN seems to be very successful at running a voter registration campaign that is fronted by Project Vote but then “contracted” to ACORN t o do the work always ultimately turns partisan, as it states in the Midwest Regional Report Year End/Year Begin 2006/2007:


“Voter Registration did a huge number of cards, 70K but also had big gaps in the tightness of the drive. Minnesota had a breakthrough year as well, with APAC making early endorsements in the Governor’s race, Keith Ellison for Congress, Mark Ritchie for Secretary of State and Lori Swanson for AG. We won 3 of the 4 big ones, with our candidate’s meltdown a week out costing us a huge friend in the Governor’s mansion. We ran a good-sized America Votes canvass in our turf as well as 13K registrations.”


Not only should Mullis call for action against Project Vote, but it may be time to see what ACORN has really been up to with its other “sister” organizations. ACORN is like a turtle and rarely lets its true money makers stick their heads up or as Zach Polett puts it in his notes from 02/09/06:


“Communications Stuff: Do we really want a communication person to establish and maintain relationships with reporters? Do we want Project Vote to have increased visibility on field stuff? Leads most likely to attacks. So keep your head down and keep the non-partisan 501c3 status away from attack. Keep it pristine. Some things we may want to be Project Vote, such as EA [Election Administration] stuff.



A media component might be a part of a larger plan to move policy reports and analysis, most likely with policy reporters, not so much with political reporters, who are more on the lookout for the next Abramoff scandal.”

That quote speaks for itself. Good Luck Senator Mullis.



The Real Test Is Saturday

First apologies for the absence.  I had hoped to liveblog Tuesday's results, but I have one word for you:  rotovirus.  After my bout with hand/foot/mouth disease two weeks ago all I can say is that life gets interesting after your kid starts pre-school.  They become glorified little germ factories.

Republicans are obviously in relatively high spirits after the thumpin' of incumbent  challenger Jim Martin in Tuesday's special elections.  It was pretty widely expected that Saxby Chambliss would win re-election, but most people expected at best an eight-to-ten-point win (the number I had in my mind).  Chambliss won by about fifteen points.

Reactions and interpretations to the election have been varied.  For a good roundup of reactions, check out MichaelW's post at QandO.  My sense is this:  It is a good datapoint for the GOP, but it is only one datapoint.  It is far too early to conclude that the GOP is on the mend, or that Democrats' standing with the voters has begun to decline.  On the other hand,  I think we have some good evidence for the following:

1) This election is only a datapoint, but it is a useful datapoint -- Although turnout was lower than the general election, this was a very high turnout special election.  Chambliss actually received about 200,000 more votes than he received in the 2002 midterm election, while Martin received about as many votes as Cleland did that year.  In other words, I'm more comfortable with using this election as a datapoint than I am with using most other special elections (not very).

2) "Save the filibuster" is a useful slogan for 2010 -- Democrats are going to have a harder time in the 2010 Senate midterms than many expect right now.  This isn't to say that they are doomed, or are going to lose seats, or anything like that; just that we have some evidence that the size of their majorities poses a potential problem for them.  One of the theories for why the President's party has lost seats in almost every midterm election going back to the Era of Good Feelings is that voters rationally choose to counterbalance the President by beefing up the opposition party.  If this is the case, then the prospect of truly unlimited power for the President's party should act as a significant brake on that party's ability to advance to sixty seats, absent some good luck (eg if the Senate election rotation was timed such that Republicans had open seats in heavily blue states like Rhode Island and California this time around, such that voters there wanted such power for the President, against the wishes of much of the rest of the country).

Polling data show that a good chunk of Martin's voters were concerned enough about the prospect of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority to call into question whether they would vote for him.  We don't know how many of Chambliss's voters in the special election echoed this concern, but given the Rasmussen result, we may be able to infer that they are not inconsequential in number.  And that's at a time when Obama has approval ratings in the 60s, something that is unlikely to last once he gets to business of actually governing.  Assuming that Obama's approvals only decline to the mid-50s by 2010 (which would be an outstanding result for him), the "save the filibuster" attack would hold considerable promise for a GOP that is only defending three seats in states that went for Obama by more than his national average (and only marginally so at that).

3) Obama had coattails -- We knew this before the election, but this gives us some idea as to the magnitude of how many people showed up just to vote for him.  I'd been skeptical that we'd really seen a permanent upward tick of black participation in the electorate, or that youth participation would remain as high going into 2010.  This lends some support to that theory.  For a fuller explanation, see Michael Barone's excellent breakdown of the November/December election results in Georgia.

4) The real test is Saturday -- On Saturday a Republican and Democrat will face off in the election for the Fourth Congressional district in Louisiana.  What makes this election somewhat useful is that this district has a similar partisan makeup to LA-06 and MS-01, two Republican districts that Democrats picked up in special elections earlier this year by running moderate-to-conservative Democrats.  While I will urge caution here because there are still important differences -- the Republican candidate is stronger than the Republican candidate in LA-06 and the Democrat is the urban candidate here (he was the rural candidate in MS-01) -- the fact that we have two relatively similar case studies of pre-Obama special elections to weigh against a post-Obama special election could allow us to draw some useful inferences here that we would not normally be able to draw from a special election result.

This should be a close race -- Democrats after all were winning open seats in the South with regularity before 2006/2008; see LA-05, LA-03, TN-04, etc.  But if Republicans win the Louisiana district by more than a couple of points, combined with the Chambliss result, we will begin to have some good evidence that the anti-Republican backlash of the last few years has really begun to subside.  Stay tuned.

Election Night Redoux

Minnesota- Franken vs Coleman:
In the final day of the Minnesota U.S. Senate race recount, reports are that 171 uncounted ballots mysteriously turned up and had apparently been uncounted because of a ballot-counting-machine malfunction on Election Day. Al Franken made a net gain of 37 votes from these ballots, as he got 91 of the total, to 54 for Sen. Coleman, (26 went to other candidates). This gives Coleman an official edge of 305 votes, assuming all the challenged ballots will remain uncounted. The Franken campaign somehow insists Coleman's lead is only about 50 votes.

Georgia- Chambliss vs Martin
Two of the last polls give Chambliss what appears to be a solid edge. Public Policy Polling gives him a 7 pt advantage and the Insider Advantage poll has him up by 4. Additional good signs for the incumbent- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that turnout is light but steady. This probably means the democratic turnout that so helped Obama is not coming out for Martin.

So it looks likely that Republicans will win both of these seats and the question becomes, what does this mean?

It means the Republicans will have to be active participants in the next congress. They won't be able to hide behind a Democratic super-majority and instead will have to engage the other side both on issues they agree on and those they don't. Centrist Republican senators like Susan Collins, Arlen Specter and yes, John McCain, will become pivotal players leading up to 2010. They will feel pressure from the right to obstruct everything that comes down the democratic pike, and they will be pressure from the left to "cross the aisle" and put "country first."

It is going to be an interesting couple of years.


Helping Re-elect Saxby Chambliss

As grassroots,  online conservatives with a voice, we've got to do all we can to keep the GA Senate seat as a firewall to prevent a run-away liberal, Democrat Congress and Obama Presidency. 

I'm a graduate student in the Midwest, but I've decided to give $5 a week to do my small part.  I'm also making calls to friends I've got that live in GA.  We've all got to pitch in to do our part to keep this seat.  Make calls, donate money, give your time.  This is our chance to restart and rebuild by electing Saxby. to donate and volunteer to elect Saxby Chambliss and keep this firewall seat.


State Of The Senate Races In Minnesota, Alaska, And Georgia

 There is a lot of confusion and misinformation that I am seeing about the Senate races that currently hang in the balance in the states of Minnesota, Alaska, and Georgia. The Democrats hold 57 Senate seats as of this writing, and were they to win all three of these contested races they would hit the magic number of 60. 

This of course can not be allowed to happen, and it is imperative that Republicans mobilize in full force in order to prevent these seats from turning to Democratic hands. All three are seats that are filled by incumbent Republicans, one who has now been conviced on several felonies, which complicates his bid for re-election.

Minnesota, could potentially be the closest and therefor most hotly contested race. As of this writing, because of corrupt vote counting, or fair vote counting, depending of course on your party, incumbent Norm Coleman leads by .007% of the vote, or just 206 ballots. Anything under .5% triggers a mandatory recount, which will begin on November 18th. Even before the recount, Franken has been gaining. On election night, Coleman led by more than 700 votes, but has lost ground quickly. It is interesting to note, the gains Franken has made outperforms how Democrats including Obama performed in Minnesota, which raises some eyebrows. I believe there is some peculiar vote counting going on, for this reason. This race will be decided by court battles and long hand recounts. In the end, I think Franken is in the stronger position, despite the current tally. I believe Coleman is in serious trouble, and has a good chance of losing his seat, in fact, I believe Franken will win it, and I call this seat for the Democrats. 

In Alaska, the race is very close as well. Incumbent Senator Ted Stevens leads by only 1.5% over Democratic challenger Mark Begich, a 3,257 vote lead. Stevens will most likely pull it out, despite his conviction and the close race. However, should he win, it is almost certain he will resign, which under Alaska law will trigger a special election. The only reason Mark Begich came close to defeating Stevens is because Stevens is seen as corrupt, a fresh non incumbent, young Republican would easily win a special election regardless of how strong a contender the Democrats throw at the race. Many think should this scenario come to pass, Sarah Palin is likely to run to fill the seat, she is immensely popular in Alaska and would win the seat easily. This seat is safe for Republicans, it is just unclear which Republican will be sitting in it when the dust settles. 

The last race is truly a toss up. Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss won the popular vote, but fell .2% short of the 50% mark needed to avoid a run off. Allen Buckley, the Libertarian candidate, siphoned 4% of the votes off, almost ensuring the Dec. 2nd runoff. Essentially, turnout is the key in this election. There is no presidential vote this time around, and this will work to make turnout very low, most likely below 45%. Whoever gets the most turnout wins, as the Libertarian is not a factor this time, come Dec. 2nd, one man will have a plurality of the vote. Traditionally, the Democrats get-out-the-vote machine is superior to that of the Republicans, and I am very worried about Chambliss' seat. There is no way to make a good prediction, but if I was forced to say who is in the better position, I would say Democrat Jim Martin. Again, this race is very close though, and it is the only one that will be decided by the voters. 

By my tally, the Senate balance of power looks like this. Currently, the Democrats have 57 seats, I predice they will win Coleman's seat in Minnesota, bringing them to 58. I predict a Republican will win the Alaska seat, but I have not the slightest clue who. This keeps the balance at 58. Should Martin win the Georgia seat, which is more likely I think then Chambliss winnning, then the balance shifts to 59, one vote shy of 60.

Of course, Democrats do not need 60 to get past a filibuster. With 59 votes, they can almost always pick off a moderate Republican to support the measure and ram legislation through. Effectively, the Democrats have a working majority in both houses, and they have a president in the White House who is more than willing to sign there legislation. Now, all that remains to be seen is how they will use, or abuse, this new power. 

Georgia As the New Celeb

While I think the "Celeb" moment has been incredibly useful in throwing up a cloud of dust in Obama's face and putting him on the defensive, I don't think it's anywhere close to what McCain's closing argument should be. Ultimately, it's attacking Obama for his popularity, and popular isn't a bad place to be.

Where McCain twists the knife is on Georgia.

Georgia is where McCain highlights the necessary flip side of Celeb -- Obama's naivite and inexperience. Part I of the narrative is that Obama is just a rock star who packs stadiums. Part II is that rock stars don't solve your problems. 

The Georgia/Russia crisis is the reason why Americans have elected Republican Presidents for 28 of the last 40 years, even if they lean a little to the left on domestic issues. In a time of crisis, you need a hard-headed, tough leader who will have his eyes wide open on foreign threats. McCain, a long-time Putin critic, is perfectly suited to that 3 AM role. In a thumbnail way, Obama is the least-well-suited Democratic candidate on this score since McGovern.

Polling Trends Improve Huckabee's VP Odds

Over in camp Huck we keep an eye on polls.

Not so much on the unscientific internet kind, (although those are fun too) as much as on the national polling done on the state of the race between the two presumptive nominees.

We're not so blind in our support of Huckabee and our platform, as to not realize that McCain's eventual pick for veep will be the one who can help him win, based on the strategic play for state flips between the two.

We were, as a result, pretty bummed to read after Ted Strickland announced he was taking himself off the table for democratic vp, that Obama seemed to be ceding the rustbelt to McCain and had started to float the idea of a strategy of trying to flip Nevada, New Mexico,Colorado, and other mountain west states.

Anybody with a political brain knows that's advantage Mitt territory.

(And Nooo I'm not hating on Mitt, I'm just saying Mike's my guy, so it didn't feel great to see his chances appearing to slip away.)

Some may well say that the rustbelt blue states also play to Mitt's strengths, and that may be true, but only if he runs in them as a 'populist,' fairly similar to how he ran in MI, and that didn't go over so well with the fiscon wing of the base. And I don't think he'd want to 'sully' his conservative credentials for the future in taking that rout, but that's just my opinion.

We think Mike is actually the stonger veep pick for the Penn/Ohio heartland pickups because of his significant appeal to Hillary's blue collar crowd. (Mike's true base was always more working class than 'evangelical'.. class was the lowest common denominator across all of his support groups)

In fact, you could almost lay John King's democratic and republican big boards over one another on primary nights and find an exact match between Mike and Hillary and Obama and McCain. There is no doubt that Hillary's rural vote is going to be a serious game changer here.

But I digress..

Word was, McCain was holding the rustbelt on his own without veep help and Obama was turning his eyes west. It looked like Mike would get to keep his new day job at Fox after all.

And then came the latest round of polls: Former congresman John Leboutellier on his blog comments:

The new spate of Quinnipiac polls from Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania have rocked the GOP political establishment.

Here is the brief overview from Quinnipiac:

This is the first time Sen. Obama has led in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University polls show:

Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43 percent;

Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent;

Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent.

In the three states, Obama leads McCain 10 to 23 percentage points among women, while men are too close to call. The Democrat trails among white voters in Florida and Ohio, but gets more than 90 percent of black voters in each state. He also has double-digit leads among young voters in each state. "Finally getting Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the race has been a big boost for Sen. Barack Obama. He now leads in all three of the major swing states, although his margins in Florida and Ohio are small," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Believe me: these results - especially in Florida (thought to be secure for McCain) and Ohio (very winnable for the GOP - especially with Governor Ted Strickland stating he would not accept the Veep slot from Obama) - have shaken the McCain campaign and renewed the fear that an anti-GOP, anti-Bush tsunami is rolling in this fall - and it may take not only McCain along with it but dozens of GOP House and Senate hopefuls, as well.

It appears that Obama may be neutralizing some of McCain's opportunities to pick up blue states. That leaves us status quo until you discover the progress that Obama is making towards flipping some states that went red in the last general election.

First, Iowa. Mccain didn't really campaign there during the primaries, focusing his energies on NH. But it was unlikely,'white as the driven snow' Iowa, that gave Obama his first big win and set him on the path to the nomination. They 'know' him, and like him there, a lot.

James Barnes in a National Journal article today reports:

“Because Iowans have a relationship [with Obama] they’re less likely to buy into the negative imaging attacks that McCain and, especially, the [independent] ‘527s’ will do in Iowa,” Norris said. “Iowans are going to say, ‘This guy is not that; he won the caucuses.’ ”

And on Mccain's chances:

If his campaign has sometimes created the impression that McCain is indifferent to Iowa, his opposition to popular subsidies at times has made him seem downright hostile to the state’s interests.

In opening a town hall meeting in Des Moines last month, McCain attacked another economic boon to the state, the farm bill with its many crop supports. Playing his favorite role of maverick, the Arizonan told Iowans that if he were president he’d veto the measure.

Iowa, is one reason McCain should give Huckabee a secod look for veep. The only way he is going to hold Iowa red, is if he can maximise the turnout in Iowa's rural conservative base, and Huckabee has proven that he can do that on a dime.

Another recent polling indicator that may shift the veep winds Huckabee's way, is bad news out of the south. Obama is now in a polling dead heat with McCain in Georgia, and showing signs of strengthening his positions in other swing states like Missouri.

From Insider Advantage 6/19:

June 19, 2008A New InsiderAdvantage / PollPositionsurvey conducted June 18 of registered likely voters in the November presidential contest shows Sen. John McCain leading Sen. Barack Obama by a single point in Georgia, making the race in Georgia a statistical tie. Libertarian Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia, received 6 percent of the vote.  The telephone survey of 408 registered likely voters is weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 5%. It was conducted with InsiderAdvantage’s research partner Majority Opinion Research. PollPosition is InsiderAdvantage’s new branding name (look for additional information and expansion of PollPosition in the coming months). 

The Results:

McCain: 44%

Obama: 43%

Barr: 6%

Undecided: 7%

My view is that Georgia, the 9th largest state in the nation with 15 electoral votes, will remain a major new battleground state through November. This changes the landscape of electoral politics as Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and perhaps another surprise southern state, join Florida as potential “swing states,” that cannot be presumed to vote Republican in 2008.”

Now granted, earlier polling did not reveal as much strength for Obama on the southern front, but as they say, time heals all wounds, and some of Hillary's voters may be going home.

There is a chance that the winds of change may blow through the polls once again, but as emotions stabalize after the bitter democratic primaries, I think the trends we are seeing will hold fast and expand.

That means, as of now, Mccain needs a vice presidential pick who can help him hold Iowa, as well as southern states that are trending Obama, he also needs someone with enough blue colar appeal to stengthen his chance of taking the rustbelt to counter any losses that he may absorb in the south/mountain west, (although, for the record USA Survey polling showed that Huckabee polled extremely well in many swing states not traditionally considered his forte. )

SurveyUSA Polling Strongly Indicates that Voters Prefer Huckabee
6/3: Massachusetts Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Lieberman & Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: New York Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Lieberman, 2nd: Huckabee, 3rd: Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: Iowa Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: Kentucky Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: Alabama Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Lieberman & Pawlenty, 4th: Romney

6/2: Minnesota Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Pawlenty, 2nd: Huckabee & Romney, 4th: Lieberman

6/2: Oregon Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/2: Washington State Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Romney, 2nd: Huckabee, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/1: Nebraska Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

5/30: Wisconsin Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee & Lieberman, 3rd: Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

5/29: Kansas Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd:Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

5/23: Ohio Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Lieberman, 3rd: Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

5/21: California Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

There are many conservatives who do not like Huckabee on a personal or political level. But I think those seeking to put forward the argument that he brings 'nothing' to the table as a vp pick are living in dreamland.

Huckabee supporters  are prepared to accept the outcome if the path to victory overlooks picking Mike as vp. We may not like it, but would embrace any clearly pro-life vp in a heartbeat. The question is, would the rest of the GOP base get on board if the path to victory included accepting Mike Huckabee as VP. Sadly, I'm not so sure of that.

Time will tell the tale.

Syndicate content