@realjohnboy,
Huck, yes. I was amused by Donald Trump's response to Huckabee's "dramatic" announcement last night. One showman to another: "Great career move."
And it is. Huckabee gets big bucks for the next five years second guessing Obama and Congress. He keeps his name out there for 2016 and, for the next few months, he gets to have a few socially conservative Republican candidates slobbering on his shoes like a bunch of golden retriever puppies, eager for attention.
If you look at Nate Silver's images below and cross out those who are out of the race, there is a big gap where Huckabee was.
It seems to me, as I suspect it does to most here, that the next presidential election should be on the economy and what should be done about some of the structural issues.
The Tea Party movement tries hard to keep the focus on the economy.
Perhaps the stars will allign for Obama. Unemployment may drop from 10% to 8%; housing prices may seem to have hit bottom (I doubt it) and the Fed will keep inflation under control. The wars may wind down a bit.
Both parties will see it in their interests to postpone the hard issues, such as exactly where spending will be cut or whether taxes on some must be raised.
If I were a Republican consultant (I am neither), I would be concerned about where the party is headed on social issues like abortion, gay issues, immigration etc.
Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses in 2008 with 34% of the vote. His suitors for an endorsement may try to go for that same crowd, alienating others whose votes will be needed to defeat Obama.