The NYTIMES wrote that 80% of the GOP caucusers were evangelicals.
Huckabee only got 34% of the GOP vote.
SO... if ALL his votes were evangelicals, then he only got 40% of them - meaning 60% thought another candidate was better than Preacher Huckabee.
That's hardly a ringing endorsement of Huckabee by evangelicals.
If Huckabee got some non-evangelical support, then his evangelical support is even lower than 40%.
This has a few consequences: first, it PROVES that the evangelical base is NOT MONOLITHIC and NOT UNIFORMLY BEHIND HUCKABEE; second, it suggests that Romney's team is correct when they say that Huckabee won because Huckabee's get-out-the-vote effort was better than theirs.
Elections are won by GOTV and everyone - including me - estimated that Romney and Hillary would get better efforts because of their money and tram experts and organization.
In the next few primaries, the candidate with the best organization on the ground will win - excluding major mistakes (whether forced or unforced).
I think Romney and Hillary may both make comebacks because of their money and organizations.
And I give the edge to Romney: he can always just write a check; Hillary has to raise money and that might becoming quite difficult.
I don't think Huckabee and Rollins can keep the ball rolling. Their support is not deep and it is not wide.
ADDENDUM: I think Mitt ought to more effedtively use Jim DeMint and as many other southern conservatives as possible - to show he is going to govern as a conservative.
Earlier post on Huck's intrinsic weaknesses as a candidate HERE.