Mike Huckabee Shares Why He May Not Run: Money

Mike Huckabee Shares Why He May Not Run: Money


No doubt that it costs a lot of money to become President, and that may keep Mike from putting his hat in the ring in 2012.

Still, I don’t think this is any sort of indication that he won’t be running. He cites his popularity in swing states and traditionally blue states as a reason why he may just hang back and let the field thin…and then enter.

Personally, Huckabee seems to me to be one of two real threats to Obama in 2012. The other is Romney.

What do you think?

  • Brian

    It’s hard to tell if that last statement in the interview was sarcastic or not. I’d like to believe it was.

  • Trescml

    There is a lot of money in being a commentator and there is no guarantee after running for office that the money would still be there afterwards. I think there is less risk for someone like Huckabee than Palin, but there is still some risk. In the end I think he will run and he has at least some shot of winning the nomination and beating Obama (unlike Newt).

  • Buwahaha

    Why doesn’t this guy strike me as “presidential?”

  • kranky kritter

    I think his support is deep at the expense of broadness. He can probably capture an enthusiastic core, but I think he’ll struggle to get from 40-45 to 51%.

  • bubbaquimby

    I agree with KK. There were reasons that Romney and Huckabee didn’t beat McCain and it wasn’t because McCain was doing a great job at campaigning.

    I just don’t see either winning this time either. Romney has the health care mess and also that socons don’t trust him. While Huckabee is seen by people like my dad (who sides with established GOP) as basically a reformed New Dealer.

    I have no idea who will face Obama but I pretty sure it won’t be Huckabee, Romney, Newt or Palin.

  • Alistair

    To add to the last two comments I would look at Tim Palenty as a darkhorse fo the GOP Nomination.

  • mdgeorge

    What Brian, you don’t think Evolution is a key concern of the presidency?

    I agree with everyone else as well about huck. And maybe I’m blinded by my liberal slant, but I have a very hard time envisioning any of the GOP candidates actually threatening Obama. On the other hand, I am often surprised by the electorate, so who knows.

  • kranky kritter

    I don’t even think Pawlenty is a dark horse. I think Pawlenty and folks like him are going to be more attractive and viable as national candidates than the dried up pool of has-beens being floated now. The GOP has traditionally been a party that grants its nomination to the person who has remained loyal and earned their “turn” to run. But I don’t think that’s going to happen this time. We’re not going to see a Dole or a McCain in 2012. No sad futile effort will be accepted this time. Palin quit her govenorship. She’s out. Gingrich is old news, and has high negatives. He’s out, too. When was the last time Romney or Huckabee had a real job? hey may bid, but I don’t see success there.

    I think the 2012 nominee ends up being someone who has been prominently working hard within accepted conservative ideals in an elected position. More likely a governor than a congresscritter. And someone with demonstrable appeal outside the base, and outside regional party strongholds. Someone who doesn’t feel too, too provincial.

  • Mike A.

    …Chris Christie….

  • Alistair


    Chris Christie won’t run will until 2016.


    I think that some GOP traditionalist may rally behind Tim Pawlenty because he doesn’t have the negatives like Newt, Mitt and now Mike Huckabee since he’s joined the birther movement. Tim might seem kinda of boring but he can appeal to some outside the base more effectly than Mitt.

  • gerryf

    Obama has done nothing to ruin his chances at a second term (despite the nonsense spewed from the far right) and so you’re not going to see any bright stars running against him.

    Short of major flubs (ala Carter, Bush I), the other party typically doesn’t throw its best and brightest against a one term president so we will see the good old boys who “deserve it or paid his dues” rather than someone new.

  • gerryf

    totally off topic:

    Just had a Bell’s Special Double Cream Stout….oh wow, best beer I’ve had in months….yum.

  • kranky kritter

    I don’t think his chances are “ruined” either. He is demonstrably less popular by far, and so IMO quite beatable, pending developments over the next year and a half. Especially economically.

    Speaking generally and loosely, every Presidential election that includes an incumbent President is a referendum on that incumbent President. Not exclusively of course, but largely. Whether anyone likes it, that relates to the “are you better off now” question. And usually, “deserve” has got nothing to do with it. If you’re better off, the chief gets the credit. And if not, the blame.

    One ironic counterbalancing effect may quite possibly vex conservatives. If the GOP stands poised to take control of the senate and expand dominance in the house, that could very well help the case for re-electing Obama. The more that the GOP has already done in terms of hacking government, the less remaining stomach people will have for more. Regardless of how much balance has been restored to the budget.

    Gerry, care to make it interesting on your contention the the GOP nominates one of “the usual suspects” is 2012?

    @Alistair: I believe Christie means what he says right now when he says he isn’t running. And I like the reasons why he says he isn’t. I also believe that under the right circumstances he might change his mind. In other words, I don’t think he’s being coy or playing hard to get. I simply think the lure of the Presidency may prove irresistible.

    Remember, in 2007, lots of people said Obama should wait until 2012. Not Obama himself of course, but still. Times change quickly. People with high aspirations are prone to worrying whether any given good opportunity might turn out to have been the best or only opportunity. Especially when they are surrounded by ambitious advisors who have waited all their lives for the right thoroughbred to hitch the wagon to…such folks are prone to incessant whisperings along the lines of “a chance like this seldom comes along twice” etc., etc.

  • Mike A.

    Christie has been adamant that he isn’t running, but as KK pointed out, there are circumstances that could drive reassessment of that decision. But I do believe it’s doubtful. To KK’s point on his reasons….Christie may not be universally popular, but one understands his positions on major issues. He can be bombastic and combative, but that’s actually a refreshing change from the run-of-the-mill politicians.

  • Jacob

    I agree that we’re not going to see a Christie run until 2016. He’s playing it smooth as hell right now. Refusing the GOP SOTU response, he’s nailing the part of the “moderate Republican”, he’s either very smart or has very good advisors (or both).

    We can’t forget about Huntsman. I think we’re about to see a sneak attack from him. I’m curious to see if using China as the field for domestic politics is going to hurt or help him.

  • kranky kritter

    As a recent lengthy profile suggested, he is pretty good at using examples to make complex ideas understandable. And most importantly for me, he seems willing to play the turd in the punchbowl.

    He’ll go before a group of people and tell them stuff they may not want to hear. He’s not big on convenient, sell-sounding half-truths. He’s a bottom line guy when it comes to insisting that regardless of what we think we deserve, we’ll get only what we can afford, sooner or later.

    Like I said, I agree that Christie sounds quite sincere and decided about not running. IOW, I believe him. Doesn’t mean he won’t run. Much stranger things have happened. He is, at this point, the only conceivable GOP nominee among the names being mentioned that I would consider choosing over Obama.

    If we ended up with an Obama-Christie showdown, and I voted for Obama, the reason would probably be that I wanted to keep him as a blunt against an overwhelming Republican congress in 2013. If the democrats were keeping the Senate, then I’d probably prefer Christie.

  • michael mcEachran

    @ KK: “If the GOP stands poised to take control of the senate and expand dominance in the house, that could very well help the case for re-electing Obama.”

    During the Health Care debate, I couldn’t help but think that this notion was in the back of Obama’s mind as he pushed along the Dem congress to pass Health Care reform – a move that was sure to result in huge midterm losses. I think he was smart enough to know that a backlash against “Obamacare” would likely result in a backlash against a Repub resurgence (they had no real ideas afterall). Its almost as if the Republican midterm sweep ironically took all the air out of the GOP’s sails (as evidenced by the Democrat’s successes during the lameduck). And I think it’s taken the wind out of their sails for the 2011 Pres run, too. The GOP was in better shape when they were tossing spitballs from the side-lines. I think potential GOP candidates all kind of know that the winds have shifted against them, and they are dragging their feet.

    I also really liked Maddow’s reporting on Newt’s motives for playing around with Presidential runs – that he needs the press associated with a presidential exploration to keep money coming in, but that he doesn’t want to actually run and be beholden to the financial reporting rules that a candidacy would require. Spot on. I’d bet a six pack he won’t run – and I’m sure it will be for the reasons Maddow asserts.

  • kranky kritter

    I have a hard time believing Gingrich really wants to run irrespective of the stuff Maddow is speculating about. In Gingrich I see a gestalt of someone who has gotten old, whose time has passed, and who lacks the passion he once had. He’s become quite comfy in the niche he’s carved out that requires no real responsiveness to a constituency. He’s sort of like a once great football coach who has been doing color blather for too long a time. His name still gets mentioned, but really he wants no part of the hard work.

    Besides, Gingrich has high negatives, which means limited upside.

    Its almost as if the Republican midterm sweep ironically took all the air out of the GOP’s sails (as evidenced by the Democrat’s successes during the lameduck). And I think it’s taken the wind out of their sails for the 2011 Pres run, too. The GOP was in better shape when they were tossing spitballs from the side-lines.

    There is certainly something substantial to that notion. Just how much, we’ll see. I continue to believe, as always, that the Presidential election is sensitively dependent on the nature of the public’s mood down the stretch. And these are volatile times.

    The chances for a GOP winner in 2012 depend on economic indicators in late summer and fall of 2012. What will unemployment be? How will the budget look? What about inflation, and the value of the dollar? What about interest rates and the housing market?

    But in the meantime, I think it’s pretty obvious that GOP is finding the sailing much rougher now that they have to govern instead of just criticize. This a pattern that repeats itself. I said it would happen and it’s not even patting myself on the back to say so. That’s just how it works. Ascendant partisans always think their latest rise is some sort of final victory or enduring shift. They never think their wave will crest and recede. But the declaration of the fundamental victory/shift is almost invariably the sign of the high water mark. Remember liberals calling conservative irrelevant in Jan 2009.

    Note also that the more successful the GOP is in standing tall for serious cuts across the country, the more that sets the stage for the public’s appetite diminishing for deeper more serious cuts if offered by a 2012 GOP prez candidate.