Huck: Different rules and 'I would have won'
He insists he's not seeking the vice presidency, he tells a Huffington Poster.
UPDATE: But it appears he believes deep in his heart that he's No. 1. In a lengthy interview in Seattle, The Huckster says he'd have won the Republican nomination if Republicans played by the same rules that Democrats play by.
If you do an analysis of the election, if we had played by the rules of the Democrats, I would have won, and if the Democrats have played by the rules of the Republicans, Hillary would have won this long ago.
If you look at the process, and I'm not bitter about and it's nothing that I'm complaining about. It is what it is. But the Republicans had a front-loaded system with winner-take-all states, and the front-load was largely states that were states that are not Republican states, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California. They were winner-take-all states, but they were big states and delegate-rich. Those were the states John McCain plays very well in. I've won the states in the South. I won Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia and Arkansas...
But those were all proportionate states. So I won them, but I didn't get all the delegates. But if you had taken that whole system and reversed it, it would have been a very different outcome.



Comments
Like everything else he does, Huckabee's answer is one huge parsing, circumlocution weaseling of a non-answer.
Of COURSE he's wearing out the little shag rug beside his bed by hitting his knees every night and saying, "Puhleeese, Lord, let it be me. Let it be me."
Posted by: Mannish Boy
|
May 26, 2008 02:54 PM
"and if the Democrats have played by the rules of the Republicans, Hillary would have won this long ago"
If black voters had not supported Obama by 90 plus percent, Hillary would have won months ago. Any candidate that gets 90 plus percent of the black vote in a Democratic Primary will win. It's like getting a 3k start in a 10k run.
Posted by: looking forward to 2012
|
May 26, 2008 05:04 PM
"If you do an analysis of the election, if we had played by the rules of the Democrats, I would have won...."
Analysis of the primaries, maybe? We haven't had the election yet, and I'm still hoping there will be one.
Mannish Boy nailed it in the first sentence.
Posted by: hugh mann
|
May 26, 2008 05:14 PM
I've never met a preacher or politician who could admit error.
Their whole infallible sham falls apart if they or their "God" is wrong.
I've been laughing since 1978, when "God" told the Mormons he was just joking all those years and blacks were finally okay for admission into "full membership."
God changed his mind. Uh-oh.
Huck's a preacher AND a politician! He's doubly-indemnified!
No matter what, with Huckabee it will always be somebody else's fault.
In other words, Mike Huckabee keeps offering monthly public "affirmations" about his own weakness and ineffectuality against mysterious powers outside himself (namely, Everybody Else).
Okay, Mike, honey. We get it.
If Reality were different, you'd be a Winner.
But Reality is not and you're a Loser.
THAT'S the reality.
You're a teensy bit paranoid with delusions of grandeur, bestowed by God, Gov.
WORK it, Dumpling!
But please stop with the self-victimization "affirmations" and get a talk show deal. Find your level of competence.
Whatever else: always remember the camera adds at least ten pounds, Tulip.
Ten pounds.
Hold that thought.
Bon voyage!
Posted by: NormaBates
|
May 26, 2008 06:29 PM
At least Huckabee doesn't try to change the rules after he's already lost the game, unlike some New York senators I could name.
Posted by: Prouster
|
May 26, 2008 07:20 PM
Right, Proust. Never met a politician or preacher who could admit error.
Thanks for inadvertently proving my point.
Posted by: NormaBates
|
May 26, 2008 07:38 PM
Norma, you're usually batting a 100. However
>>I've never met a preacher or politician who could admit error.<<
Bill Clinton fessed up about the oval office bj, it was "inappropriate" according to Billy.
Well, maybe that's not like a Saturday nite confessional to Father Duffy but gets past zero.
Posted by: L.Wood
|
May 26, 2008 08:19 PM
Make that two.... Obama admitted being a coke head was a mistake.
Posted by: looking forward to 2012
|
May 26, 2008 08:36 PM
"Make that two.... Obama admitted being a coke head was a mistake."
not to the millions of voters under the age of 50
but at least BO was/is able to keep his "libido" in check (as far as i know)
most unusual for a young, charismatic, democrat
Posted by: muleboy303
|
May 26, 2008 10:35 PM
I remember hearing Obama say he had used coke, but I don't remember him saying he had been a coke head. Is it just a matter of semantics, or are those two situations the same?
That sort of thing is a deal breaker for some voters, but it doesn't give me a moment's pause.
Posted by: hugh mann
|
May 26, 2008 11:46 PM
as far as you know....exactly
and you know nothing
Well someone that tries cocain is not a coke head. Some one that uses it repeatedly is a coke head.
At least getting a bj does not involve breaking federal laws.
Posted by: looking forward to 2012
|
May 26, 2008 11:50 PM
and federal laws have proven themselves time and again worthy of absolute fidelity?
(pardon the pun)
Posted by: muleboy303
|
May 26, 2008 11:56 PM
We better hope for the sake of Larry Craig or Mark Foley that dipping into something once or twice
does not mean you're gonna be encumbered for a lifetime. Pardon my pun.
Posted by: L.Wood
|
May 27, 2008 02:38 AM
Once or twice? yeah right...
Posted by: looking forward to 2012
|
May 27, 2008 10:50 AM