Huckabee would not be an ‘easy kill’

By JAMES P. PINKERTON

LONG ISLAND NEWSDAY

So is Mike Huckabee an “easy kill” for the Democrats? And are the Republicans the distinct underdogs, no matter whom they nominate for the presidency?

Maybe. After all, in public opinion surveys, the critical “right track/wrong track” question shows negative feelings predominating by a 2-to-1 or even 3-to-1 margin. That’s bad news for the incumbent party, in terms of holding the White House.

But some Democrats maintain that the former Arkansas governor, in particular, has a “glass jaw.” Hence the headline in last Tuesday’s Drudge Report: “Dems Hold Fire on Huckabee; See ‘Easy Kill’ In General Election.”

Now I don’t doubt Matt Drudge’s sourcing for his story. And it’s certainly true that the Democratic National Committee has focused its fire on Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. So maybe Huckabee is the weakest Republican candidate, and the Democrats just can’t wait to get thrown into his Razorback brier patch.

But it’s also possible that the Democrats might have miscalculated the Republican race — certainly plenty of Republicans have done so — and now they are spinning, while reassessing.

It’s happened before. Long ago, I worked in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign. And I well remember Democratic politicos insisting that Reagan was the weakest Republican opponent that Jimmy Carter could face as he sought re-election that year. Was that “psychological warfare” by the Democrats? Or did they really think that the 69-year-old “cowboy” ex-actor — not yet known as “The Great Communicator” — would be the easiest Republican to beat? Probably a little of both.

But we all know this for sure: Reagan carried 44 of 50 states in the election against Carter. So the moral of the story is that predictions from hired-gun spin doctors are not to be trusted.

As for who is likely to win next year, one huge variable is whom the Democrats run as their nominee. If, for example, they run a moderate centrist from the middle of the country — say, Harry Truman or Dick Gephardt — they will win in a walk. Oh, wait, neither of those Missouri men will be on the ballot. Scratch that scenario.

Heartland centrists?

Instead, the Democrats are most likely to tap either Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York or Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, which, in Obama’s case, means Chicago. Do either of them come across as Heartland centrists? If they do, Republicans are probably doomed next year, because a look at the past 60 years of American presidential politics shows that Heartland candidates, from both parties, have won 14 of the last 15 elections — and such geography being equal, it’s the Democrats’ turn to win.

But what if Clinton or Obama comes across as, say, a coastal or urban liberal? Well, then the Democrats have a problem, as history tells us. In 1948 Truman defeated Thomas Dewey of New York. And in 1952 and 1956 the Republicans won with Dwight Eisenhower, born in Texas, raised in Kansas.

In 1960, of course, came John Kennedy of Boston — a great city but not exactly the Heartland. So count JFK’s victory as the one exception that probes the rule.

In 1964, the Heartland pattern reasserted itself, as Lyndon Johnson of Texas triumphed. Next up, in 1968 and 1972, came Richard Nixon. Technically, Nixon was a resident of New York in the ’68 election, but everyone knew he was a Californian — and not from Beverly Hills, either. In 1976, the winner was Jimmy Carter of Georgia. And in 1980 and 1984 it was Reagan, from rural Illinois by way of California.

In 1988 came George H.W. Bush of Texas, followed by Bill Clinton of Arkansas and then, of course, George W. Bush.

So Huckabee is an “easy kill”? Don’t believe it. He has to get nominated first, and that won’t be easy. But if he does, he will be formidable in a general election, just like that other Razorback.

The Heartland wins.

X Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday. Distributed by the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service.