I Agree with Every Word of Steyn's Column

Which is unusual, because I almost always find something to bitch about in anything I read, regardless of its author.

But not in this case: Secular Left vs. Christian Left.

Confronted by Preacher Huckabee standing astride the Iowa caucuses, smirking, "Are you feelin' Hucky, punk?", many of my conservative pals are inclined to respond, "Shoot me now."

But, if that seems a little dramatic, let's try and rustle up an alternative.
In response to the evangelical tide from the west, New Hampshire primary voters have figured, "Any old crusty, cranky, craggy coot in a storm," and re-embraced John McCain. After all, Granite State conservatism is not known for its religious fervor: it prefers small government, low taxes, minimal regulation, the freedom to be left alone by the state. So they're voting for a guy who opposed the Bush tax cuts, and imposed on the nation the most explicit restriction in political speech in years. Better yet, after a freezing first week of January and the snowiest December in a century, New Hampshire conservatives are goo-goo for a fellow who also believes the scariest of global-warming scenarios and all the big-government solutions necessary to avert them.

Well, OK, maybe we can rustle up an alternative to the alternative.
Rudy Giuliani's team is betting that, after a Huck/McCain seesaw through the early states, Florida voters by Jan. 29 will be ready to unite their party behind a less-divisive figure, if by "less divisive figure" you mean a pro-abortion gun-grabbing cross-dresser.

Actually, you should read the whole thing. Steyn has several premises that I believe to be correct:

1) Notice who is missing from the above paragraph? Romney and Fred. I think this is an implicit statement by Steyn that they are done as contenders for the lead spot on the ticket.

I think this is mostly right. Romney has to win New Hampshire or he's done. Nobody will care if he wins Michigan: he's basically a favorite son there due to his family history.

And the hindsight of 2008 will be that Fred just never really got started. Yeah, yeah, I know "Wait for South Carolina!!1!1!11!eleventy!". Assuming he has the money to run ads (a problem for him late in Iowa) I think he finishes behind McCain, no matter where McCain finishes in the list. McCain's 2000 network and the large presence of retired and active duty military in South Carolina give him the edge over Thompson. Especially if McCain wins New Hampshire.

2) Steyn is correct in his premise that McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee are the left wing of the GOP.

3) Steyn asserts in a two-way race between Huck and Obama, Huck would win. I think this is right, regardless of how many dispirited internet commenters stay home.

An Obama nomination will represent a huge problem for one major group: Pollsters.

Simply put, they won't be able to accurately poll his support or the support of whoever he faces. Why? Because people want to look good when accosted by a pollster.

Obama's support will be overstated, and his opponents support understated. We've seen this happen before: In Louisiana they call it the "Duke Effect", as David Duke used to consistently pull a higher percentage of the vote than polls ever showed him receiving. In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois has seceded two or three times by now according to polls, but their separatist ballot measure always underwhelms.

Now, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to publicly admit they voted for a dick like David Duke. I'd be embarrassed about it too. So his underpolling/overperforming is understandable.

But what to make of the race neutral question of Quebec? Simply put, more people wanted to be thought of as "Free Quebecers" than wanted to be actually free of Canada Quebecers. So their polls overstated support and the ballot questions underperformed.

Which will happen with Obama I bellieve. Americans will tell pollsters one thing, and then a not-insignificant portion will do another.

What does all this mean? If Huckabee (or any other GOP candidate for that matter) is shown to be winning anywhere in a head to head poll against Obama,that lead is probably real.

If Obama is shown leading, I think you have to subtract anywhere from 3-5 points to account for the "voter perceived reputation effect". Which sounds like a saving throw you would make in D&D, but which is in fact a very real phenomenon. That's gonna put a lot of potential blue states with low minority populations (New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, Washington State) in play while leaving the GOP looking to defend probably only Missouri and Iowa.

4) Steyn's description of public disapproval of a "creepily coercive secular multiculti pseudo-religion" being a player here is correct. There really is a backlash building against this stuff, and people want to vent about it. Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard, but he's right about there being a significant number of people who are tired of what they really do view as a "War on Christmas".

Hell, you should see the mail that comes into my Congressional office. The District my boss represents is by no means what some of you might call "Rubesville". And one of the most frequent complaints is about this multi-culti bs.

Huckster tapped into it. It's to his credit that he recognized this and made it his issue on our (barely) side. Now I don't like the way he did it, as his ever so cute floating crosses and his less-than-subtle jabbing about theological components of his opponents faith were nauseating. It is possible to like the message and dislike the messenger, though.

It would be interesting to see this message co-opted by another GOP candidate. I don't think Giuliani will do it, as it diminishes from his message of "I governed the most diverse city ever!". I doubt McCain will, as it would bring him too close to having to connect with a kind of social conservative for whom he has historically shown a particular disdain. No one would buy it coming from Romney, and it would force him to talk about his faith again which he doesn't want. Fred could probably do it, but at this point would anyone pay any attention to it coming off of his less than impressive effort in Iowa and his soon to be non-showing in New Hampshire? Probably not.

Anyway, read the damn article. You've read this haven't you? And it's nowhere near as good.

posted by Jack M. at 10:29 AM

| Access Comments