Super Tuesday: Sifting Through The Pieces

19 Responses to “Super Tuesday: Sifting Through The Pieces”

1. CarlH on 06 Feb 2008 at 8:27 am #

   What leaves me shaking my head is the result from California. Once again, the pollsters were not just wrong; they were spectacularly wrong! It’s hard to believe that the bandwagon effect could be enough to account for the disparity between the forecasts and reality–although I suspect that may be a big part of it. (I have a colleague in my office who started out early last year as a big Giuliani supporter, started shifting to Romney a couple of months ago, and then last week claimed–with a straight face, no less–the he has “always been a McCain guy”! And a more “establishment” Republican you have a hard time finding.)

   For this LDS voter in Utah, McCain is still “right” on the biggest issue that still faces the United States, but “wrong” on virtually everything else. I will still vote for him over either of the two Democrats (even if he pays back Huckabee with the VP slot), but precisely because of the tone of his and Huckabee’s campaign in relation to Romney’s religion, the difficulty of keeping my nose held to cast the vote will overwhelm any ability to get enthusiastic about the candidacy.

2. HaroldHutchison on 06 Feb 2008 at 8:54 am #

   The Vanderbilt study, I think, does prove the bigotry argument.

   I’ll toss my vote for McCain in the general, but after that, I’ll probably go independent.

3. Swertfeger on 06 Feb 2008 at 8:58 am #

   I’m sorry, but Huckabee just disgusts me. His Biblical references last night showed that to me. 1 - What is the small smooth stone he is referring to that he used? To me the one thing that his election hinged on, that one small smooth stone is religion, and I find that disgusting. 2 - He showed that he really doesn’t understand the story of the widow’s mite. The analogy of the widow’s mite illustrates what it really means to sacrifice and how it is not the absolute size of the sacrifice that matters but instead the relative size of the sacrifice. And Huck diminishes people like me who donated our widow’s mite to Mitt’s campaign (after donating our other widow’s mite to the church first of course).
   Anyway, I just think that Huck has been laying on his religion pretty thick and it disgusts me.

4. John Schroeder on 06 Feb 2008 at 9:01 am #

   Bigotry exists - it always has, it always will. Remember at least 10% of the population thinks Elvis is still alive.

   The question is, “Is bigotry determinative?” The Vandy data is inconclusive on that point - it says that less than a majority of people use the code.

   I do think identity is determinative, there is lots of data on that, that is different than bigotry. Its not pretty but it is not nearly so ugly either.

5. kgbudge on 06 Feb 2008 at 9:32 am #

   If our comments and email are any measure, there are a lot of Mormons ready to take a hike on Republicans and the political process in general right now.

   I am really struggling not to give in to the dark side on this one.

   Since New Mexico is practically the last Republican primary, and thus has almost zero effect on the nominations, I am strong tempted to drop my Republican affiliation and reregister Independent as a protest. But there are still state and local primaries that matter.

   Bottom line is that I have nowhere else to go and the Republican Party knows it. The party can spit in my eye all it wants. Being fiercely resentful of this won’t change it.

   The Mormons have become the blacks of the Republican Party. How ironic.

6. JLFuller on 06 Feb 2008 at 11:52 am #

   Certainly we have to separate politics from religion. That is what this effort has been about. John is afraid the Evangelical voice will be dimmed. Most of us Mormons are fearful of religious preference becoming a disqualifier. That puts both of us in the same boat. We have been proven correct - the Mormon was dis-invited from the party. John’s fears have not yet been realized but I think we all can see it on the horizon. The moderates and liberals only concern themselves with the conservative agenda when they need us at election time. McCain will get elected on his “character” and military record rather than political agenda and ideology. We shouldn’t let his Vietnam record be the deciding factor in our vote although many do. Just remember, Benedict Arnold was a war hero too.

   I suppose we have become a lot like blacks in the Democrat party. They always vote the way they do because the Republicans do not present an alternative they can live with. Like African-Americans, in the end we have to decide what is more important to us - the prospect of some of our issues being addressed or none of our issues being addressed. Are we OK with standing at the table or are we holding out for a seat at the table at the risk of being dis-invited altogether. Remember, McCain may shake our hand, take our money and ignore us anyway, but at least we will have some opportunity to be in the room. We may have to hold our nose while we do it but all we have to do is shake hand. We don’t have to kiss him.

7. James on 06 Feb 2008 at 12:29 pm #

   I just can’t do it. There is no way that I could support a McCain-Huckabee ticket. And that deal has been made, just look at the WV convention. If Clinton is the dem nominee, I’ll reluctantly vote for them to keep her out. But that is only because they would do relatively less damage to the character of our nation. If Obama gets the democratic nod, all bets are off because I see him as a far more moral man than McCain, and character does count for something. If he’s the nominee, I think that he will come closer to actually carrying the intermountain states, including Utah, Idaho, and Arizona than any democrat in a generation. He just might pull it off if the LDS population of those states is sufficiently disgusted with McCain.

8. HaroldHutchison on 06 Feb 2008 at 12:39 pm #

   John:
   The problem is 57% of the evangelicals held an anti-Mormon bias. At least 50% also admitted they would view a moderate Protestant (like McCain or Huckabee) more favorably than a relatively conservative Mormon (Romney).

   Between that and the anecdotal evidence from this blog, I’m sorry - there just is no other plausible explanation at this point. As of now, the evangelicals - and social conservatives in general - will need to prove to me that they do NOT harbor an anti-Mormon bias.

   I have three nephews, one of whom has a father who will be serving in the global war on terror. And at this point, I would have to tell them that no matter what they do in their lives, I doubt that they can be President because of which church they go to, largely by virtue of having been raised in it.

   And I’m just supposed to make peace with the folks who have created that condition?

9. JLFuller on 06 Feb 2008 at 1:22 pm #

   For twenty years I was in court watching criminal offenders be sentenced. One truism from that experience works well in politics too. If you push the system all the way when you shouldn’t, you loose the judge’s good will and face a tougher penalty. Now is the time for Mitt Romney to create as much good will as he can rather than push the system to the convention. The numbers just don’t work for him. If he stays in I suppose he could generate some influence. But if it doesn’t work, he could generate ill will and be unprofitably divisive.

   The best way to generate influence is to build party cohesion now. McCain shouldn’t be the guy sweet talking conservatives, Romney should. By taking the lead, he can marginalize Huckabee and be on the leading edge of the next debate. He can claim the moral high ground by getting to work electing Republican governors and members of Congress.

   I suppose some advisors will say to stay well away from Congressional elections. Maybe. But it seems now is the time to put the party’s interest ahead of personal ambition. McCain is a short term leader. He will burn a lot of bridges quickly. The party will shortly need leadership. It will need someone who has gravitas and who has proved himself and to whom others listen. This first foray into national politics was a great training ground but the stars didn’t align this time. But next time is a different story.

10. jmh on 06 Feb 2008 at 1:23 pm #

    I appreciate the work that is done on this blog, I only wish you could have reached more hearts and minds.
    At this point I have to ask myself; would I want to associate myself with a group that sees no problem with asking( as part of their political discourse..)” could we vote for a Jew, and African- American or a women…etc,.” ? I think not.
    Therefore, why on earth would I want to associate myself with a party that in this day and age has to debate whether an otherwise more than qualified candidate is unelectable because he is a Mormon.How can I support such a party by giving it my vote, much less send in my hard earned money to promote this kind of value system? Right. Kick me in my most personal deeply held beliefs, but oh yeah vote for me and send cash……
    I don’t think I can.
    Sen. McCain has been all too happy to reap the rewards of the religous bigotry stirred up by Gov.Huckabee. If at any point Sen. McCain had shown true Reganesque leadership and denouced such tactics, rather than choosing political expediency,I might have been able to hold my nose and vote for him.
    Not now.
    If the public at large, and those who believe in the Article 6 precepts in particular, can just pass off this kind of stuff as just -to-be expected politics…then I think we would gain political expediency but lose in the end.
    Regardless of who the President is, the battle over judges will occur in the legislative branch, thanks in part to Sen. McCain, so the emphasis at this point will be, I think there. And, I am not convinced that he would give us the kind of judiciary that would impact the court in a positive conservative direction. As I recall, we ended up with Justice Souter by virtue of the last read-my-lips Republican…….

11. mamabaig on 06 Feb 2008 at 1:47 pm #

    I am a Latina LDS. I think Romney lost big in California, and around the country, in part because of his religion, but LARGELY because of his politics!

    I think that Californian’s and other states sent a resounding message that Americans are not going to allow millions of people to be rounded up like cattle, and inhumanely shipped out of this country.

    His vow to begin doing so 90 days after taking the oval office certainly turned me from him and greatly dissapointed me that an LDS man would be so heartless. To that Jesus broke the Sabbath Law to help a donkey, but this man wants to cold-heartedly kick out a group of people who have come here because their circumstances are so harsh in their own country. I have been to Mexico. I have seen old blind women in the streets, and cripples, and children and people living in shacks while just a mile away there are those living in mansions. The Mexican government should be held responsible, but the people should be helped. Fining them and providing a pathway to citizenship is the best option for us Americans and the immigrants.

    We turned a blind eye for generations while millions of people risked their lives, left behind their families and worked in hard, low-paying jobs in order to provide for their families.

    Closing the borders is one thing, but spending the money (that we can’t afford as we are trillions in debt due to the war in Iraq) to instigate a mass roundup, which only serves to cause hatred toward all Hispanics and divides our country, and would require some form of documenting ALL Hispanics (how would you know who is legal and who isn’t) is just WRONG.

    Maybe I am naive, but I like to think that this country said a resounding NO to Romney’s round ‘em up. Yeah! for the Latinos in California who stood their ground and voted for McCain and Hillary.

    I would have been proud to vote for an LDS man who had showed some heart and not so much arrogance!

12. Sherry on 06 Feb 2008 at 2:44 pm #

    I can’t say I would blame the LDS folks, including me, though I haven’t given up yet, for packing up and going home, especially if Huckabee becomes McCain’s running mate.

    I was in Utah during the last midterm election and I was surprised at how many so-called “third party” candidates there were on the ballot. There were a couple of these other parties that actually had candidates in all, or almost all, of the races. What I recall was at least one of these other parties having a significant showing in the results, no wins, but some double digit percentages. I wouldn’t find it out of the realm of possibility that a McCain-Huckabee ticket would result in Utah voting for a third party. In fact, a strong third party candidate might find a fairly good amount of support elsewhere as well if the responses to McCain that I’ve been reading are any indicator.

13. ldsmom on 06 Feb 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    This is what the evangelicals have reaped with their sowing of religious bias and hatred. I grew up in the South. The same people who would be mortified to be accused of endorsing the old Jim Crow laws see no problem with dismissing a candidate because of the church the candidate attends. Jim Dobson, through his talk of not voting for McCain, did not say a vote for Romney was an acceptable alternative. In fact, in “evangelical-speak” his audience did just what they were counseled to do–to vote for the candidate who was “just like them,” and I suspect he also voted for the Huckster. Huckabee may think he has a slot on the ticket as the VP. I think McCain has a lot fewer “friends” than his campaigning would suggest–and Huckabee will be the most expendable one the closer we get to the convention. McCain will pander and change his mind all day every day–his ambition has no bounds. (Actually, so is Huckbee’s ambition–he is using you, evangelicals!!) I will NOT vote for either McCain or the religious bigot, Huckabee. At this point, I don’t care who the Democrat candidate is.

14. James on 06 Feb 2008 at 5:34 pm #

    To mamabaig:

    You really should find out what Gov. Romney’s policy ideas really are. (http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/immigration) There is nothing there about deporting anyone. Yes, if you start arresting employers that use and abuse illegal immigrants, the people here illegally will start to go elsewhere. That isn’t lacking in compassion, in fact in connection with securing our borders both north and south, it is the most compassionate solution. The current system cannot continue. It allows the victimization of millions and turns otherwise honest people into lawbreakers and cheats.

15. bizkid on 06 Feb 2008 at 5:40 pm #

    I have thought for a very long time that the Republican party was in desperate need of replacement. As a vehicle for advancing conservative, constitutional originalist principles, it has always been woefully inadequate. The conservative base is wooed every election cycle and then discarded by the powers that be within the party. Conservatives will never be taken seriously by the party as a whole, regardless of how badly they need us.

    Even more disappointing is to learn that a mormons, a group often regarded as the most reliably conservative has been effectively relegated to second class citizens within the party. None of the comments posted above hit so hurtfully and truthfully as the statement that “Mormons have become the blacks of the Republican Party.” The moment I read that I realized to my great disappointment that it was true.

    Words cannot express my dismay toward those evangelical bigots (a term I have never even thought, much less uttered before now) who have taken us for granted as political allies within the party for so long.

    Evangelicals and other Republicans should take note of three things: first that Obama beat Clinton here in Utah on the democrat side, second, that over 90 percent of the Utah Republican vote went to Romney, and third that Utah (and Utah Mormon) isn’t afraid to vote for third party candidates (Ross Perot place first here in the 1992 election, and as noted above, our ballots are chock full of alternative party candidates).

    As far as I am concerned, the Republican Party - especially a Republican Party that apparently can’t find anyone better than John McCain to lead it - deserves to land right on the trash heap of history. And the sooner the better.

16. JLFuller on 06 Feb 2008 at 6:11 pm #

    mamabaig’s comment is a bit off the mark. Romney did not say he would round people up like cattle. I think she has been listening too much to Democrat and left wing Mexican propaganda. You might want to go to Romney’s web site and take another look. A safe thing is to just find out for yourself. His position is misrepresented in mama’s post.

    I have never heard of any Republican saying they would round anyone up and deport them, criminals excepted. The others are pressured to return to their country of origin over a period of time. This is accomplished denying them jobs and benefits. Employers hiring illegals are heavily sanctioned if they do. None of that sounds remotely like what mamabaig says. As a loyal American, she should support enforcing our immigration laws.

17. texan on 06 Feb 2008 at 8:05 pm #

    It will be a while before all the numbers are crunched

    I just crunched a few numbers and wondered if others have observed that the reason McCain’s lead is so solid after Super Tuesday is because he happens to be popular in states that allocate delegates on a winner-take-all basis.

    Currently, McCain has a 36% advantage over Romney in the delegate count.

    If the states had the same number of delegates as in the current system but all of the states allocated their delegates on a purely winner-take-all basis, the spread would narrow to 28%.

    On the other hand, if each state had allocated all of their delegates based on the proportion of votes received in that state, the spread would be reduced to 1%!

18. coltakashi on 07 Feb 2008 at 2:14 am #

    Texan’s comment is very enlightening. The primary system has all sorts of random features that might have been OK back in the days before the modern volumes of mass communication. But now, features like the dates when primaries are held, whether they are winner-take-all or proportional to some extent, create all sorts of meaningless and irrational inputs to the process that have nothing to do with the spin that is put on the results by some candidates and the national news media. Then there are the variations in delegate allocation made by the local and national parties, such as the penalties imposed on some states for moving up before Super Tuesday.

    Why are Iowa and New Hampshire significant? Neither one has a lot of delegates. It used to be they were so far ahead of other state primaries that a candidate could take the imprimatur of a win in one of those states literally to the bank, as the basis for persuading folks to contribute to his campaign. But now they are followed by other states in quick succession, so the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire is in reality diminished. They are mere “first among equals” states. South Carolina used to have a special catchet, but now you can skip it entirely as Romney did.

    The claim that only candidates who win South Carolina can be the nominee is totally inapplicable in this new regime of earlier primaries. Yet the news media still act like each state has the importance it used to have in the old regime.

    The news media are just itching to eliminate Romney so they can concentrate on the glories of John McCain. The thing I found most amazing in the coverage was that Romney’s series of wins in several states was denigrated as too little, too late, but Huckabee’s win of fewer states and fewer delegates was praised as remarkable! As far as Romney is concerned, the news media always think his glass is half full. Yet the number of people who have voted for him is huge!

    The weirdness of the primaries process has created John McCain as the leading candidate, even though an entire branch of the party, the conservatives, does not like him!

    The whole notion that a person getting 35% of the vote can win ALL the delegates in a state is irrational. A majority have actully voted AGAINST him.

    The real lesson from this campaign is that the Republican Party is allowing random factors to play hob with the real desire of a large block of voters. And the news media act as if the results are intentional and meaningful. This is really as stupid as the butterly ballots.

    Before the next presidential campaign, the Party ought to reform the primary election process and make it (a) uniform (voting rather than a caucus), (b) proportional rather than winner take all (so that someone who had 1% less of the vote can get a representive share and is not considered a “loser.” Then they can work on a schedule of states that produces more representative and rational outcomes. Say, allow the states that are most predictive of the nomination process to go first, and Dethrone Iowa and New Hampshire.

19. texan on 17 Feb 2008 at 6:37 pm #

    Dan Riehl says the numbers do not bear out a definitive Evangelical anti-Mormon problem. And outside of Utah, there did not seem to be much of a pro-Mormon impact either.

    Looking at the results of the 29 primaries and caucuses Romney competed in, it appears that there was a clear religious impact on the outcome of those contests.

    Of those 29 contests, McCain won 12, Romney won 11, and Huckabee won 6. In rough terms, that’s a 40-40-20 split.

    I thought it would be interesting to see if the outcome had any connection with the percentage of Mormons in a given state. My observation has been that the single biggest antidote to prejudice of any kind is when someone meets people from the group that he or she despises or distrusts. I suspected that states where the average citizen has a high likelihood of knowing a few Mormons were states in which the outcome was different than the states where the average citizen has a low likelihood of knowing any Mormons.

    1. The six states with the highest concentration of Mormons - states where Mormons represent greater than 3% of the population (Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming) voted overwhelmingly for Romney. Five out of those six states chose Romney. The only one that didn’t choose Romney was McCain’s home state. That’s either an 83% percent win record for Romney or a 100% win record (depending on whether you ignore McCain’s home state). In most of these states (except Utah), you can’t really say that the Mormon voters dictated the outcome. However, it appears plausible that the higher likelihood of non-Mormon voters knowing a few Mormons may have made a difference.

    2. On the other hand, let’s look at the six states with the lowest concentration of Mormons (Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York) - states where Mormons represent less than or equal to 0.3% of the population. In other words, it is at least 10 times less likely that someone you meet in one of these states will be a Mormon than it is in the 1st group. Only two of these six states chose Romney. One of the states that chose Romney was the state where Romney was born and his father governed, and the other state was the one where Romney governed. That’s either a 33% win record for Romney or a 0% win record (depending on whether you ignore Romney’s home states). It appears possible that the low likelihood of non-Mormon voters knowing Mormons may have made it more likely for those voters to be nervous about voting for a Mormon.

    3. Now let’s look at the states where Baptists represent greater than 20% of the population (note that none of these states are in group 1 or group 2 above: Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Missouri, Florida). Romney won zero of those nine states. These states went for either Huckabee or McCain (5 for Huckabee, 4 for McCain), but they definitely didn’t go for Romney. Baptists and Mormons certainly can be friends. There is plenty of room to acknowledge common ground (religious and otherwise). But the electoral results may indicate that many Baptists in these states, at least at the present time, are nervous enough about Mormons that they avoided voting for one.

    4. And what happened in the remaining eight states? Romney won half of them (Romney 4, McCain 3, Huckabee 1).

    It appears possible that what happened is:

    * States with the highest concentration of Mormons are comfortable enough with Mormons that they don’t mind voting for one (Romney won either 83% or 100%, depending on whether you exclude home state advantage).
    * States with the lowest concentration of Mormons are nervous enough about Mormons that they’re less comfortable voting for one (Romney won either 33% or 0%, depending on whether you exclude home state advantage).
    * States with the highest concentration of Baptists are also nervous enough about Mormons that they’re less comfortable voting for one (Romney won 0%).
    * The remaining states that don’t seem to have a strong religious angle were pretty comfortable with Romney (Romney bested McCain and Huckabee, winning 50% of those states).

    If the above analysis had any predictive ability, I was expecting Romney to lose in Mississippi, North Carolina, Kentucky, Texas, Virginia, and Louisiana. So, if he had stayed in the race and the trend had continued, he wouldn’t have had much of a chance.

    A suggested solution to the problem this analysis points to: actively meeting folks from other religions. Interfaith dialog, cooperation, and collaboration across religious divides (whether between people of different religions or between religious and non-religious people) will make our nation a healthier place.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.