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.

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.

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%!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!