Post SC/NV Evangelical vs non-Evangelical Scorecard (with NV Mormon vote analysis)
By jjfuller72 Posted in Archived — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Total voters thusfar: 1,731,000
Total "Evangelical/""Born Again" voters: 734,200
Total non-Evangelical voters: 996,800
Evangelical Numbers
Percent of total votes cast that were from Evangelicals: 42%
Evangelical Voters by candidate:
Huckabee -- 36%
Romney -- 25%
McCain -- 24%
Thompson -- 10%
Paul -- 4%
Giuliani -- 1%
Before SC, Romney was tied with Huckabee at 31% each with the Evangelical voters. Huckabee has an undisputed "base" among Evangelicals, but both Romney and McCain have proven that they can get a significant portion of the "Evangelical vote."
Non-Evangelical Numbers
Percent of total votes cast that were from non-Evangelicals: 58%
Non-Evangelical Voters by candidate:
Romney -- 36%
McCain -- 35%
Paul -- 9%
Huckabee -- 9%
Thompson -- 6%
Giuliani -- 5%
Yes folks . . . the appeal for Huckabee to non-Evangelical voters is on par with Ron Paul's (before this Sat he actually trailed Ron Paul among non-Evangelical votes by quite a large margin). Huckabee definitely HAS NOT proven in any contest thus far that he can get non-Evangelicals to support him in large numbers.
Huck's best showing for the non-Evangelical votes was 14% (both in IA and SC--4th place in both instances). In MI he got 8% of non-Evangelical votes. In NH he got just 6%, and in Nevada he got a Hunter-esque 3% of the non-Evangelical votes. This does not bode well for Huckabee from Feb 5th onward (let alone how in the world he could compete in a general election). He's yet to prove that he can move beyond his base (and his gaffe-prone campaigning the last few weeks isn't helping with any "outreach"). Additionally MI, NV, and even SC have shown that he's even having a hard time "locking up" his Evangelical base effectively.
I maintain my position from last week's similar post: Mike Huckabee's sole purpose in this race right now is to dilute Romney's access to social conservative voters so that McCain can win and then Huck can hope to be chosen as VP.
***************
Now onto the Mormon vote in Nevada. Most media outlets seemed to delight in repeating that Romney got 94% of the LDS vote in Nevada. It was repeated time and again as I watched the coverage live and many pundits said/inferred that this factor accounted for Romney's win. Actually, if you subtracted out every single Mormon vote for Romney he still would have won by a double digit margin and had nearly double the votes of either of his next two competitors.
With voting totals around 115,000 in the Dem race (I saw that number on Fox News) that would come out to approximately 3500 LDS voters NOT voting for Romney in the Dem caucus.
By contrast, 25% of the GOP caucus in NV that were Mormon with nearly 45,000 total GOP voters --- therefore around 11250 LDS voters and 94% of them were for Romney . . . but that means nearly 500 were not.
So, 4000 LDS in Nevada voted "Not for Romney" and 10,750 voted for Romney. That breaks down to 73% LDS for Romney and 27% LDS that were not for Romney. Not quite the absolutely robotic block-voting groups that many media outlets are trying to play up, but, still, a solid base for Romney in the western/mountain states.
An interesting counter-argument about such huge LDS support for Mitt is that LDS have absolutely NO reservations about or aversion to Romney based on his religion, and can therefore view him outside of that context (while most non-LDS cannot) and therefore judge him solely on his record, experience, and issue stances. Romney surely hasn't "pandered" to the LDS base like Huckabee has to his Evangelical base. Historically speaking, there was no huge LDS groundswell of support for Orrin Hatch in 2000, or Mo Udall back in the 70s. Similarly, Harry Reid is a guy that only a tiny fraction of LDS would ever consider voting for based on co-religiosity. In Romney most LDS are able to see, outside of the context of him having a "weird religion," that he is an incredibly competent, faithful, successful, and articulate leader with a record of conservative governance and broad-based executive experience.
I've never thought there was any "upside" for Romney or his supporters to decry the hard or soft bigotry that he's faced because of his religion. Most of us have know it exists, but it is something difficult to quantify. It is what it is and it's hard to change, so why focus on it, right? No one likes a "whiner" and Romney certainly can't be criticized for being one. However, a recent study out of Vanderbilt University provides pretty convincing evidence that religious aversion to Romney is very real, but has hidden under the cover of his branding as a "flip-flopper." The researchers conclude that such negative perceptions and labels have "stuck" to Romney because of underlying or overt theological misgivings about his religion.
Bias against Mitt Romney’s religion is one of the reasons that the tag “flip-flopper” sticks with the former Massachusetts governor but not his Republican opponents, according to Vanderbilt political scientist[s] . . .
“We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,” Benson said. “Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.
The study’s findings suggest that criticizing Romney for flip-flopping is an effective campaign strategy because it sticks with two different groups: those who are genuinely concerned about Romney’s shifts on certain issues and those who use the label as cover for the fact that they do not want to vote for a Mormon for president.
“As the campaign continues to unfold, these data become increasingly relevant as the Republicans choose a presidential nominee,” Geer said.
Again, I present this not as a complaint or "whining" about it, but in an informational sense. Like Romney, I love data and believe in it's power. Having this new data out there might help people see deeper into the dynamics of this race and self-analyze why there may be an aversion to Romney for which he can hardly be blamed. That he has succeeded and progressed despite this "handicap" is quite impressive IMO.
Thoughts?
At least evangelicals are rejecting Huckabee. The vote for Romney in Mormon circles is a block vote. So it does cut both ways.
As far as the misreading of the religous test you cite, see my comment below.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Did you read the post? He showed that Mormons are NOT a block vote. Quit reciting your bias and spend your time reading. You might learn something.
...and clearly not politicaly correct: We jump on evangelicals for not "jumping ship" and voting for a Mormon, but the Mormons are clearly monolithic in their support for Romney. The attempts to spin it by the author above are pretty transparent. My point isn't to bash Romney, but to point out that the bigotry on this issue clearly runs both ways.
1. Clearly the 3% percent of the Mormons in the democrat caucus didn't vote for Romney. So what? I doubt that any of the evengelicals in the democrat caucus voted for ANY of the republican candidates. We still show a higher bias (by far) of Mormons voting Mormon, while evangelicals are voting for multiple candidates in both parties.
2. Be honest. What was the percentage of GOP Mormons that voted for Romney, versus another GOP candidate? Evangelical democrats don't vote republican, so you can't have it both ways and exclude Mormons (you acknowledge this when you have to type "sarcasm" to make your point).
3. Your point about "no religous test" in the constitution is clearly not being read in the strict constructionist, textualist, or originalist manner in which we want justices to read the text. It is commonly accepted that the clear meaning of the text is that there can be no limits placed on qualification for the office with regard to religion. This means the governement cannot write a law restricting some religions from having members in an office. Also, it is clear the constitution restricts the behavior of government action, not private action. But perhaps I am wrong, so please show me any case history of a private voter being indicted (not even found guilty, just charged) with voting based on any personal reasons. It is clearly not the meaning.
4. The points about groundswell for Reid, Udall, and Hatch hold no water. The Mormon voting block was still present; those candidates just had tiny support outside of their own states.
5. It has been shown that a Mormon can win in non-Mormon states (hostile MA, and MI for example). But clearly Utah votes overwhelmingly Mormon. There is nothing wrong with that. But it is clearly ridiculous to say that finger pointing of bias about religion in the voting both runs one way.
I'm a former Mormon, and a current evangelical. While I have the right to consider Romney's faith that I myself rejected, I have determined I could vote for him. My issues with Romney are his multiple flips on abortion, his approach to healthcare reform, his statement that he would have to consult "lawyers" to determine if an attack on Iran was needed, and his recent comments on "taxing the rich", his record on gun control, and his record on appointing judges in MA.
But since I'm an evangelical I guess I'll get accused of religious bias. That's odd. The only candidate on the GOP side I can't vote for is Rudy (thank God it looks like primary voters overwhlemingly agree). Next to Paul, the lowest candidate on my list is the "evangelical" candidate. Sharing my faith doesn't help Huckabee, and I hope he doesn't get the nomination.
My favorite is Thompson, since he is the only consistent conservative (both soc and fis). He probably won't get the nomination because he "bores" people. Frankly, I want a candidate that doesn't make a lot of news.
So right now I'm divided between straight talk (but GOP backstabber) McCain, and Romney (more loyal to the party, but no core convictions).
What doesn't help me to pick between Romeny and McCain is posts like this one. I don't appreciate anti-Mormon bigotry because much of it is innacurate and all of it is irrelevant. On the other hand hearing Romney supporters bring up Mormonism as much as everyone else (then crying foul) is just pathetic. If Mormons want to gain acceptance they should follows Romney's lead. I admire the fact that he isn't bringing up his faith (other than in a general sense). Huckabee on the other hand brings up his faith, it is darn close to my faith, and I don't like to hear it from a candidate and it turns me off (change the constitution into a living, Christian document?).
Playing the victim card sounds to much like victim politics from the left. Romney's followers should follow Romeney's fine example and stop bringing up the bigotry issue. If the do, the bigotry will gain Romney (and his faith) a lot more support. The less I hear from ROmney supporters trying to make points in defense of Mormon issues (like this post trying to defend block voting) the easier it would be for me to pick Romney over McCain.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
My point on the religous test was meant in response to a comment made in the comments section, not the post. I lumped it in with the wider criticism, and that was my error.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
ONCE. In fact, I'm unaware of any issue where he has flipped more than once, and none where he has gone from Right to Left.
The hyperbole on Romney is rapidly becoming dishonest rather than just being ill-informed.
There's a lot of difference between liking someone because they have the same religious background as you--and not liking someone because they come from a different religious background.
As a Mormon myself, it never upset me that evangelicals were voting for Huckabee. A mild tribalism is a fact of life. It was the anti-Mormon appeals his campaign was making, and his less than stellar political positions, that concerned me.
I see you commented more completely after the comment above that didn't really address the "block vote" issue. Sorry for the quick response.
However, you're still wrong. The difference between evangelicals voting for Huckabee and Mormons voting for Romney is not wholly in their willingness to back someone of a faith with which they disagree, it's in the candidates objective merit. Mormons don't have to "get over" Mitt's Mormonism to see that the flip-flop and integrity issue are trumped up baloney. Evangelicals often do (there's an initial angst that needs to be reassured). On the other hand, I know some Mormons who intially supported Huckabee until they learned about his record.
You can't just assume that the large percentage of Mormon support for Romney is due to his religion. It is rather that Mormon are quicker to move to an assessment DESPITE his religion. But that's something I suspect a former member of the church would have a hard time seeing.
I respect your points and the tone, even if we disagree.
1. Leon (a RS editor) is a Romney supporter in this race. But he has also written a couple of excellent articles at RS where he documents dates, speeches, quotes, and votes that clearly show Romney was pro-life, then pro-choice, then pro-life. Leon admits this flip-flopping of his candidate, but throws his support in with Romney because he feels that Romney is at least pandering to the pro-life vote, where Rudy isn't. (Rudy calimes he wants strict-constructionists, but goes on to claim that strict-constructionists are bound by stare decises to uphold Roe). McCain is also pro-life in voting, but not ardent in pushing the issue (he also has some troubling problems with anti-republican legislation).
2. I hear what you are saying about evangelical vs Mormon support of a candidate. I also hear your comments about bigotry. I have seen both sides of the issue. As a Mormon, I recall people ascribing beliefs to me that weren't accurate (and even failed to get a job because I was questioned about my faith). But I also heard descriptions of traditional Christianity that turned out to be entirely misplaced as well, and saw a fear of reading balanced material (called anti-material) that called into question Mormon spin on history and theology. As a classical Christian I have seen criticism of the Mormon faith that is either entirely hateful and ignorant, or scholarly and correct. I have also seen Mormons play the victim card time and again.
Here is my strong feeling on Mormonism and the campaign. It is my fiercest belief about the issue:
If the bigots are the ones that are heard from, then Romney will gain support because the bigotry comes across as ignorant and out of place in a campaign. But if the Romney supporters spend their time bringing up Mormonism (as the author does) it backfires, because the people (like me) that are willing to vote for Romney don't want to hear about his specific faith (faith in God is fine, let's leave out the denominational details).
So my problem with the article isn't that it defends Romney or Mormons, it is that the article brings up the issue and turns people off. I repeat that the major thing keeping Romney in my good graces is that he isn't playing the victim card in this race. When his supporters do it is a turnoff.
Huckabee loses my support not just because he has fisliberal views, but because he is playing the religion card. Romney has some socon issues in my opinion, but he is trying to keep his faith out of the equation, and I respect that. I think Thompson is the most consistent conservative, and his policies would benefit both Mormons and evangelicals (and everyone else) the best, but he has no traction.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
In reply to some of your points:
#1 The term "Evangelicals" describes a vast array of religious denominations and even messaging. However, the term "Mormons" describes exactly one denomination (and a very unified one at that). Comparing "Evangelicals" to "Mormons" as a group is apples/oranges.
#2 . . . much of the other GOP campaigns has been guilty of bringing up anti-Mormon issues. Do you expect Mormons to look past that and still voter for those candidates? The Dems haven't brought up any anti-Mormon issues (YET) . . . but if/when they do, they'll lose the support of that small slice of Mormons who vote Dem now.
Huckabee: Attended and spoke at the So. Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City that had overt anti-Mormon themes. Not to mention his "Don't Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?" slight.
McCain: His Iowa state chair said early in the process: "Of course we won't try to exploit the fact that Mitt Romney belongs to a cult." And McCain's mommy said that Mormon's in Utah caused the Olympics scandal (which was NOT true), so Romney shouldn't get any credit for fixing the problems since he too was a Mormon.
Rudy: His campaign staff pushed the story of the "White Horse Prophecy" on the press hoping they'd run with it.
Thompson: Has played fair as far as I can tell, but there's little appeal for western LDS to support a guy who has no chance at winning, is the same as Mitt on nearly all the issues, and is a Southerner.
#3 . . . I agree with you and never said otherwise. People are free to reject Romney on whatever basis they want (religious, issues, personality). No argument there, but I do think that most agree that it is at least "unseemly" and arguable "Un-American" to reject him because of where he goes to church.
#4 . . . I don't get your argument (is there one?). Are you suggesting that Mormon's would line up behind Harry Reid if he ran for POTUS and got major traction? You might want to think about that one again.
Again, I appreciate your comments/critiques, but think there's more to the argument than you're realizing.
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
This is getting pretty ridiculous how people don't like Romney because he's a Mormon. It's one thing to dislike him for his views and record, thats totally acceptable but this has got to stop.
Was there ever a whisper campaign in 2000 about Joe Lieberman being a Jewish VP? How come no one talks about how Huckabee whips up this religious bigotry by pandering to Evagelicals who won't think for themselves and just take everything he says as the divine word.
The Mormon religion is a religious belief and they are without a doubt some of the most upstanding citizens around, way better than some of the Evangelical preachers who are running Huckabee's preacher operation.
Last I looked the Constitution says there shall be No religious test for public office, funny how that seems to get thrown to the wayside when a non Christian wants to aspire to become President, instead of looking at this man's record they just openly display their bigotry that they claim not to have.