So late Friday, when word of the Newsweek Iowa poll breaks, suggesting Huckabee is up 2 to 1 on Romney, I’m skeptical. “It’s a Newsweek poll. Really tiny sample. Margin of error is up to 7 points. Not even gonna blog about it.”

In the fine print at the end of the Newsweek story: 275 Likely Republican caucus-goers (definitely/probably will attend) (plus or minus 7)

But here are Mason-Dixon’s numbers in Iowa, which I really trust: Huckabee 32, Romney 20, Thompson 11, McCain 7, Giuliani 5.

Hmmmm.

Not quite Newsweek’s 39 to 17, but showing a growing lead for Team Huck. So maybe Newsweek’s results are useful for confirming the trend…

Other Iowa polls out this month are Strategic Vision, showing a much closer race, with Huck leading Romney 27 to 24, Thompson at 14. Zogby has Romney still up, 26 to 25, Rudy at 12, Thompson at 8.

When a Rasmussen poll put Huckabee within sniffing distance of second place in New Hampshire, I sat up and took notice; traditionally southerners have found the Granite State to be rough sledding; in the case of George W. Bush, because he actually went sledding. If Huckabee followed up an Iowa win with a second-place finish in New Hampshire, you figure his numbers everywhere would get a serious goose. (Other polls have shown Huckabee’s numbers in New Hampshire comparably blah.)

But now a poll puts Huckabee in the lead… in Michigan. Yeah, a state that’s supposed to be either Romney territory (his father was governor) or McCain territory (he won in 2000) or Giuliani territory (big city state). Soren Dayton notes the number of Democrats who may vote in this year’s GOP primary and prefer the union-friendly economic populist.

So, win Iowa, finish second in New Hampshire, win Michigan… after that, South Carolina would probably fall in Huckabee’s lap. And suddenly Super Duper Tuesday wouldn’t look as important anymore.