For one thing, it is abundantly clear that Evangelicals did not vote monolithically against Romney. He beat Huckabee among Evangelicals in a number of the primary states.

On the other hand, Huck did win the “solid South” on Super Tuesday, and I’ll grant you, that’s hard to explain.

I agree Evangelicals did not vote monolithically against Romney. My observation is that McCain and Romney did best among Evangelicals in states with the lowest percent of Evangelical voters, and Huckabee did best in states with the highest percent of Evangelical voters.

Here’s one way of looking at what happened. I calculated the mathematical correlation between the percent of votes received by each of the three candidates and the percent of votes cast by Evangelicals in the twenty states for which CNN posted polling data (and in which all three candidates competed).

The result:
* Huckabee’s correlation was +0.87. More votes for Huckabee was highly correlated with more Evangelicals voting.
* Romney’s correlation was -0.43. This means the correlation was in the opposite direction, but weaker. That is, less votes for Romney was weakly correlated with more Evangelicals voting.
* McCain’s correlation was -0.22. Less votes was correlated with more Evangelicals, like for Romney, but the correlation was even weaker than for Romney.

In those cases where we have polling data, the state with the highest concentration of Evangelicals in which Huckabee lost the Evangelical vote was Illinois. CNN’s polling data shows 41% of the Republican voters in Illinois were Evangelical, and McCain won among that group.

Other than the state where Romney was born (39% of the Republican voters were Evangelical in Michigan, and Romney won both the Evangelical and state vote), the state with the highest Evangelical concentration where Romney won the Evangelical vote was Nevada. CNN’s data shows 24% of the Republican voters in Nevada were Evangelical.

Sticking with the same 20 states mentioned above (the states with polling data where all three candidates competed), Huckabee won the Evangelical vote in all 8 states that had greater than 50% of the voters being Evangelical (and he won the overall state vote in 5 of those 8 contests). He has never won the Evangelical vote nor the state vote in states with less than 50% of the voters being Evangelical (though he did tie with McCain for the Evangelical vote in one of those states, New Hampshire, where McCain won the overall vote).

Huckabee’s win in Louisiana fit with this pattern from before Romney’s withdrawal from the race. Greater than 50% of the voters in Louisiana were Evangelical, and Huckabee won both the Evangelical vote and the state vote.

My suspicion is that the trend in states with a low percentage of Evangelical voters will also continue, and Huckabee will never capture a state with less than 50% of the voters being Evangelical.

Mormonism begins with the “First Vision” of Joseph Smith. Joseph says he was confused about which church he should join. So, he went out into a grove of trees and knelt down to pray and asks his question. Joseph said that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision; both beings having bodies of flesh and bone and they spoke to him. Joseph relates the following, with the Personage speaking being Jesus: 19. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;….” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:19, 1977) In this first sentence of verse 19, the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, claims that all churches are wrong, all creeds are an abomination (Christian doctrine comes from the creeds), and all professors of Christianity are corrupt—ergo, all Christian churches are false, all Christian doctrine is an abomination in Jesus’ sight, and all Christians are corrupt. This declaration set Mormonism on a collision course with Christianity everywhere it went, and continues on this course to this very day.

This “First Vision” is an all out attack on every Christian denomination and every person who is Christian. I marvel that Mormons “just can’t understand why Christians don’t accept us!” The position that Mormons try to pawn off on those who don’t know any better that “we never say anything bad about other faiths,” is pure balderdash! The first second of Mormonism is the “First Vision” that is an all-out attack against all of Christianity. Then Mormons play the victimization card in pretended innocence that “we just can’t understand why we aren’t accepted into the religious community as equals?”

How about a little honesty here? Mormonism condemns all churches as wrong, all Christian doctrines as abominable, and all who profess to be Christians as corrupt, and then Mormons wonder why Christians don’t accept them as equals?

Can we have some intellectual honesty here? Why is it Anti-Mormon Propaganda to talk about Mormonism, but it’s not Anti-Christian Propaganda for Mormons to propagate the “First Vision” story that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith and condemned all of known Christianity? If this isn’t hypocrisy, I don’t know what is!

I think even my friends and relatives who served missions in the deep south will find that way off the mark. Maybe it was Mauss’ experience but I never knew anyone who thought that way. My youthful chums and I had visions of re-constituting the Danites! We were way too eager to get in the middle of things and crack some heads. That could be the reason we were never called to serve missions and we all ended up in the military and law enforcement. Now days we know better. But shrink from confrontation? Nope – not even close.

Mitt Romney’s high profile continues to increase ours as well. It provides us with additional opportunities to explain who we are and what we actually believe. It also puts those who demonize us on notice that they too are responsible for what they say. We regularly hear stories from converts who left churches where pastors malign others from the pulpit. It was the disinformation they heard that turned them away. When they became acquainted with one of our number they discovered we don’t have horns, or steal young girls or plan to take over the world. Just because some claim to know what the truth is does not mean they do. People want the real story from their leaders and it doesn’t take long for them to discover who they can trust.

I am not angry. I am more hopeful. In fact you might say I am very positive. My reluctance to engage others is less now than it was. I am not sure you call it missionary zeal but certainly I look forward to talking about us when the opportunity presents itself. The challenge to me is not in overcoming disillusionment or sadness at how we have been treated. It is in becoming a better man so I can take a bigger part. Mitt Romney contributed to that. He contributed in a very large way.