Reading the Paul Waldman piece that Dana discusses below, one interesting thing is that Paul doesn't consider Huckabee to be an ideal matchup for any of the major Dems. I think this is right; he strikes me as easily the toughest of the major Republicans to beat in '08. If he were to somehow to win the nomination business groups would ultimately fall into line, and his (slightly) more moderate economic record and rhetoric would play better among swing voters than orthodox GOP fetishization of upper-class tax cuts. He would also mobilize the most social conservative support, and can do so while seeming moderate. I'm certainly not saying he's unbeatable -- under the structural conditions likely to be in place in '08 any Dem capable of winning the primary should be favored over any Republican -- but to the marginal extent that candidates matter Huckabee seems easily the toughest.
Fortunately, however, I agree with the conventional wisdom that business interests -- clearly the senior partner of the GOP coalition -- will torpedo his candidacy by denying him the resources he would need to compete even if he wins Iowa. The good news is that Romney -- consequently the most likely nominee -- is both the least unacceptable potential president among major GOP candidates and also the least likely to win. The bad news is that Giuliani is the next most likely candidate, and he would be tougher to beat than Romney as well as an absolute catastrophe in the White House. Let's hope that Paul is right that a Clinton/Giuliani matchup would be favorable for the former...
--Scott Lemieux
