Special Primary Weekend Edition: Nevada, South Carolina, The Tonight Show, and “Huckabee Houdini” (UPDATED ALL DAY)
[Updated all day Saturday.]
Romney was a guest on the Tonight Show Friday night, just before Nevada. (Video here.) In a long interview with Jay Leno, The Question came up briefly:
JAY LENO: Religion seem to be an issue. I don’t get why it is. I don’t see why religion really matters, but does it seem like it’s an issue to you? Is it something you have to address constantly on the campaign trail? Or do you find most people just ‑‑
MITT ROMNEY: I think people want a person of faith leading the country. They want a person who they think, if there’s inspiration needed, inspiration will be received, but I don’t think they select their president or their secular leader based on which church they go to. So as I go across the country, there are probably some who feel that way, but most believe that we should be talking about religious tolerance and recognize that this is the nation that has a religious liberty that is very different than the nations we see around the world. If you’re not a Shia in some places, you can’t be a political leader. We don’t choose our leaders that way.
If you’re not a Shia in some places, you can’t be a political leader. Although he slipped that comment in subtly, Romney is hitting pretty hard there. Will Evangelicals bristle at the comparison to Islam? Probably only the hard-core. The truth hurts, I guess.
(Note: In response to one of our commenters: I am not saying hard-core anti-Mormon Evangelicals are like Shia Muslims, and I don’t think Romney was saying that either. I am saying that extremist Islam is not the model we want to emulate in the USA, and that the only Evangelicals who will bristle at Romney’s statement are probably those who think it is appropriate to oppose him because of his religion.)
Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee is getting some favorable scrutiny for his ability to handle religious questions:
Some evangelical observers say they marvel at Mr. Huckabee’s knack for making even the most conservative tenets of orthodox Southern Baptist faith, about creation, the accuracy of the Bible or gender roles, sound downright moderate when he is speaking in television interviews or at public debates.
“He is like Houdini,” said Oran P. Smith, president of a Christian conservative group, the Palmetto Family Council, admiring Mr. Huckabee’s recent defense of an official Southern Baptist statement about the family that he endorsed eight years ago.
It is interesting, to say the least, that Huck’s ability to slip out of giving straight answers draws admiration, but if Romney tries to avoid getting into the details of Mormon doctrine, he’s accused of being less than candid.
UPDATE: I am listening to Bill Schneider on CNN. He reports that 25% of the voters in the Nevada GOP caucus were Mormons. (There is a sizeable Mormon population in that state.) 90% of those voters went for Romney. Romney also won a narrow majority of Evangelical voters, just beating Huckabee. As long we’re slicing and dicing the electorate by religion, it would be interesting to see how Catholics and others voted.
UPDATE 2: South Carolina’s in, and I am watching McCain’s victory speech, talking about how honest he is, and generally about what an honorable man he is. According to Geraghty, in South Carolina Huckabee amassed a vote total among non-Evangelicals of . . . 12%.
The Wall Street Journal analysis is interesting:
Exit poll data suggested the economy was the top issue for Nevada caucus-goers, a factor that played to Mr. Romney’s strengths as a successful former businessman. He also benefited from the contest’s proximity to Utah, a state in which Mr. Romney has high name recognition for his Mormon faith and his much-lauded handling of the 2002 Olympic winter games in Salt Lake City. Nevada, like Utah, has a significant Mormon population.
Of course, Nevada also borders on Arizona, John McCain’s state, but I guess that didn’t help him much.
Article VI Analysis
It seems to me that from an Article VI standpoint, what have is this:
-
Huck won Iowa because he is an Evangelical, plain and simple.
-
In New Hampshire there was no appreciable religious factor, and McCain won because of Independents and Democrats who voted for him. Without Huckabee in the race, one has to wonder where the “values voters” (i.e., religious voters) would have gone– probably to Romney.
-
In Nevada, Romney won with strong Mormon support, but it appears that his margin of victory was so high he would have won there even if no Mormons had voted at all.
-
In South Carolina, Huckabee again was the Evangelical candidate, and placed fourth among non-Evangelical voters. McCain won again becaus of Independents and self-described “moderate” voters, according to the Fox News analysis of exit polls, which I am watching as I type this. Again: There was a charismatic Evangelical in the race, an ordained minister campaigning overtly as an Evangelical. Without that element in the race, does McCain still win? Does Romney still abandon the state, realizing he has no chance because of the solid wall of Evangelical voters?
When John and I started this blog we had no idea religion would play such a dominant role. But it has. And it’s not over yet!
UPDATE 3: One of our commenters makes this point about the Mormon vote in Nevada:
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that Romney has not campaigned for Mormon support specifically. Huckabee has openly appealed for evangelical support touting himself as one of them and asking for their support accordingly.
True. And John, who is away on family business, notes the MSNBC headline about Nevada: Romney gets Mormon vote in Nevada caucuses, and adds that Romney “did not run on this kind of stuff. There is a huge difference between it happening and it being strategy.”
FINAL UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini offers compelling analysis of the state of the GOP race here. The key graph:
Despite the different actors and alliances in different states, we are beginning to see the real dividing lines of this campaign. It’s the battle of the moderates (McCain), metro conservatives (Romney), and rural conservatives (Huckabee). Stripped of all other hangers-on (Fred, and increasingly, Rudy), nationwide this divide seems to work out to about 40-40-20, or 35-40-25. Conservatives ought to be winning this battle, but Huckabee’s lock on the rural vote (just 16% of the vote in Charleston County, btw) will prevent any kind of clear two-man race before February 5th. Every day that Huckabee’s nice guy act is allowed to continue is a gift to John McCain — and he knows it.
I think it’s clear that Huck’s only real potential impact going forward will be to take Romney out of McCain’s way. Essentially we have an Evangelical candidate who is in a position to deny the nomination to a Mormon candidate. Who would ever have predicted that?
Posted in Electability, Issues, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 9 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
CarlH on 19 Jan 2008 at 1:00 pm #
To say I have mixed emotions about the overwhelming LDS vote for Romney in Nevada is an understatement, but look at the MSNBC headline: Romney gets Mormon vote in Nevada caucuses. At least they had another article focusing on the fact he won–even if they do get almost equal billing on the politics front page right now.
DRO on 19 Jan 2008 at 1:44 pm #
LDS are only 6.8% in NV, so if ~95% voted for Republican / Mitt, they have a ~3.75 time their base to get to ~25% of the votes…
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NVREP
Vote by Religion
Giuliani
Huckabee
Hunter
McCain
Paul
Romney
Thompson
Protestant
(28%)
2%
13%
2%
17%
9%
43%
11%
Catholic
(18%)
4%
5%
1%
21%
18%
38%
13%
Mormon
(27%)
0%
0%
0%
2%
3%
94%
0%
Other Christian
(14%)
10%
18%
2%
10%
26%
28%
6%
Jewish
(2%)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Muslim
(1%)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Other Religion
(2%)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
No Religion
(7%)
4%
4%
8%
10%
47%
26%
1%
HaroldHutchison on 19 Jan 2008 at 7:53 pm #
Well, South Carolina just gave it’s answer as a “NO!”
fitzwdarcey on 19 Jan 2008 at 8:23 pm #
The poll numbers are woefully adequate in answering the important questions.
In Iowa, we had numbers that indicated the percentage of evangelicals that thought sharing religion was important. We don’t have that with the members of the LDS church in Nevada. There is an assumption that they voted for Romney because he shares their religion. There is no answered question.
The other thing not shown in those numbers is how many mormons would NOT vote for an evangelical. The answer is likely near zero. Most mormons have and will continue to vote for individuals of other religions.
Of course, the 300 pound gorilla in the room is how many of them felt driven to support Romney because of Huckabee and his identity politics. I spoke with my mother-in-law who lives in Utah and did some calling for Mitt Romney before the Michigan primary. Among the other callers who were LDS, almost all of them initially supported other candidates and then either changed their mind after looking at positions or felt pushed away from a particular candidate (Huckabee) and felt some solidarity in supporting Romney as a result.
There are, of course, no numbers to support that supposition, but I would wager there are more than a few that, in the words of a National Review writer, felt like sticking a finger in the eye of the man who has been exploiting hatred of their faith.
None of this will be reported or analyzed in the press, so it is disheartening that Mormons will be seen as even more of a block vote than evangelicals.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that Romney has not campaigned for Mormon support specifically. Huckabee has openly appealed for evangelical support touting himself as one of them and asking for their support accordingly.
Watchman on 20 Jan 2008 at 9:26 am #
You wrote, “Will Evangelicals bristle at the comparison to Islam? Probably only the hard-core. The truth hurts, I guess.”
That’s a pretty amazing statement to find on a blog dedicated to the proposition that religion shouldn’t matter in politics…or am I misreading you? Aren’t you (and your candidate) saying those who oppose Romney are the moral equivalent of terrorist Muslims? Isn’t that the conclusion of your “truth hurts” statement.
I understand you don’t like it that your candidate came in fourth place. But how is calling your opponents Shia any better than slamming them for being Mormon? Isn’t that still religious bigotry? The only difference I see is which direction the arrow points.
JLFuller on 20 Jan 2008 at 11:13 am #
75% of the Nevada electorate voting for Romney were not members of his church. In fact, even though 94% of LDS electorate voted for him, the overall numbers had little to do with the victory. Romney appealed to the vast majority of non-LDS voters. THAT is the story.
Also, kudos to Ethan Cole of the Christian Post whose Wed, Jan. 16 2008 piece “Candidates Asked to Reject Divisive Religious Talk” exemplified the proper way religion in politics ought to be reported. Readers are encouraged to read the article themselves.
4thnephite on 20 Jan 2008 at 2:46 pm #
If the media would take the past records and deeds of John McCain, Mike Huckabee to task, Mitt Romney would be a clear winner. With the history McCain has in Washington, Mitt wins.
Remember Mike Huchabee was the first one to bring religion into this race and I’m sure that is why this blog was created.
God bless, Joe
JLFuller on 20 Jan 2008 at 5:21 pm #
Lowell said
I take issue with your statement Lowell, because it obfuscates what really happened in Nevada. The LDS vote had little to do with Romney’s victory and to suggest heavy LDS support played a part provides support for the lazy MSM who claim Mormons made the difference. The real story is 75% of the electorate voting for Romney were not LDS. Only one quarter of the vote was Mormon. Romney would have won by 25% if there had been ZERO Mormon voters.
Sherry on 21 Jan 2008 at 2:35 am #
The last numbers I saw gave the LDS population as only 55% Republican. (Sorry, I’m not sure what the reference was.) If that is true, and they make up 25% of the Nevada population then they only represented about 14% of the Republicans in Nevada. I think it is silly of the MSM to have focused on that very small number. Now it is entirely possible that people who are LDS have crossed the isle or left the “independent” category early because of Huckabee, but it is hard to say exactly what impact this may have had, if any. I would expect people of the LDS faith to caucus for Romney on the Republican side and Edwards on the democratic side. (Edwards has a down home, conservative type feel to him that I would expect to appeal to LDS folks.) Do you suppose if Edwards were to take the state in the democratic primary the headline will be about how many Mormons voted for him? Of course it is entirely possible that the LDS vote will split between Clintion and Obama on the Democratic side, especially if Edwards doesn’t look viable by then. Then will the MSM run a headline about how the LDS vote split? After all, the MSM apparently thinks that the very small numbers of LDS people in Nevada can completely swing an election. It will be interesting to watch and see.