By Phil Kenny
No one should not promote or settle on the idea that Mitt Romney's losses in the south had anything to do with anti-Mormon sentiment. Such suggestion or idea could only produce a negative result for Mitt in the remainder of this election and 2012.
Imagine if we talk about how Mitt lost the south because of religious bigotry. If that argument sticks and Mitt runs in 2012, people will say that Mitt has no chance because we already saw that southerners won't vote for a Mormon.
So if it wasn't his Mormonism, why did Mitt lose much of the south in 2008? First off, he did great there and was narrowly beaten in almost every state.
Who beat him? The "Southern" Baptist preacher. If you go county by county, Huckabee won the rural areas. Those are the areas where being a southern Baptist minister is going to rally numbers around you. And Mitt's loss in the tight race in Florida gave McCain a boost and discouraged Mitt-leaning voters.
And why didn't Huckabee do well in Nevada or Utah? It's not anti-evangelicalism.
In addition to many other demographics, Mitt happens to do well among Mormons, Obama happens to do well among African-Americans, Hillary among women, Huckabee among southern evangelicals, McCain with seniors.
Keep in mind the future of our party and the possibility that this may be Mitt's down payment on a run in 2012, where HE will be next in line.
If that's the case, we need to highlight that evangelicals DID vote for him (yes, they did!); that he was able to unite conservatives behind him (even if they came late -- which is better than never); that he does represent the conservative coalition that Reagan built, and which we, the conservative base, must keep strong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mitt lost in the South primarily because people saw him as a phony liberal, ala John Kerry. There was vehement anti-evangelical rhetoric and Huckabee-bashing coming from the Catholic wing of the GOP (K. J. Lopez, Coulter, Ingraham, Malkin, etc), but not so much from Mormons. Look, Baptists would rather vote for a Baptist (see Georgia). Mormons would rather vote for a Mormon (see Utah). They both have essentially the same POLITICAL objectives, if differing theology. So we can all kiss and make up without difficulty once the nominee is settled on.
Romney lost not because he's a former LDS missionary, bishop and stake president, but because he's an open and notorious flip-flopper on social conservative issues.
One would certainly suspect that Huckabee's showing in Utah IS due in part to anti-evangelicalism in that state.
Post a Comment