National Review‘s Katrina Trinko argues that Mitt Romney has an “evangelical problem.”
In state after state, evangelicals have sent Mitt Romney a clear message: We’re just not that into you.
Some evangelicals do pull the lever for Romney. But consistently there is a wide gap between Romney’s support among evangelicals and his support among other groups. On average, there is a 19-point difference between Romney’s support among non-evangelicals and his support among evangelicals in Republican primaries, according to ABC News’s survey of primary states with exit- or entrance-polling data available.
That’s a sizeable gap–and one that has complicated Romney’s path to the nomination.
I’ve looked at the exit polls too, and find a somewhat more complicated story to tell. Looking at seven southern states (I include Florida, which is kinda sorta southern in the northern part of the state), Gingrich ranges from a low of 25% (Tennessee) to a high of 52% (Georgia) among self-identified evangelicals; Santorum ranges from a low of 19% (Florida) to a high of 42% (Tennessee); and Romney ranges from 19% (Georgia) to 36% (Florida). Gingrich “wins” three states (South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia), while Santorum takes the other four. Romney comes in second in three of the states (South Carolina, Florida, and Oklahoma–two of which are ties), and third in the others (but always within 5 points of second).
Now, if you regard (as I do) Gingrich’s South Carolina and Georgia performances as atypical, then his support among evangelicals drops to levels barely above those of Romney. Stated another way, when Gingrich settles back down to earth among evangelical voters, Romney’s support goes up a little and Santorum’s support goes up a lot.
There’s yet another way of viewing these results. On Super Tuesday, Santorum got 42% of the evangelical vote in Tennessee and 37% in Oklahoma. In both those states, Gingrich and Romney virtually tied far off Santorum’s pace. In Mississippi and Alabama, Santorum did a little worse, while Gingrich and Romney did a little better, than a week earlier.
Does Romney have an evangelical problem? Yes. Is it a big problem? In one way, no: he’s usually within shouting distance of second place and often within hailing distance of first place. In another way, yes: the media narrative keeps telling us that Romney can’t win the evangelical vote. But consider this: in Mississippi, roughly 7,000 votes separated the winner (Santorum) from the third place finisher (Romney). A shift of less than 2% of the more than 200,000 evangelical voters from Santorum to Romney would have changed the picture completely. A second place finish would have required only a shift of about 1,000 votes from Gingrich to Romney. I know that close only counts in horseshoes (and delegate apportionment), but I’m not willing to base too much of an interpretation on numbers that small.
I am, however, willing to base an interpretation on these numbers. In 2008, the candidate with the “evangelical problem” was John McCain, who in matchups with Huckabee and Romney in six of the seven aforementioned states never finished better than second and twice (Florida and Georgia) finished third among Protestants who attended church weekly (a smaller portion of the electorate, but as close as I could come to “evangelical”; it’s not a perfect proxy, and so the comparison is inexact, but it’s the best I can do). Aside from Alabama (where he garnered 33% of this constituency), McCain’s 2008 numbers were in 2012 Romney territory (25% to 28%). To be sure, McCain–himself identified as a Baptist–was running against an echt evangelical: with the exception of Florida (won in this constituency by Romney), Huckabee’s numbers were in the 40s.
I know that saying that Romney 2012 is pretty dadgum close to McCain 2008 is damning the former with faint praise. But there aren’t many more states where the evangelical proportion of the electorate matches what we’ve seen in the past couple of weeks. Were it not for the SuperPACs, I’d be tempted to say that things are likely soon to look up for Romney the way they did for McCain. But even if, as is likely (nay, certain), Romney’s path is tougher than McCain’s, we would do well to remember this last number: in 2008, McCain won Protestant weekly church attenders 2-1 over Obama. Nothing I’ve seen over the past three months or three years leads me to believe that any Republican candidate’s margin will be less than that.
March 14th, 2012 | 1:13 pm
I heard someone report on the radio this morning that some Evangelical pastors in the south were telling their flocks that as a Mormon Romney is a cult member and shouldn’t be supported. Does anyone know any more about this, whether it is widespread?
March 14th, 2012 | 1:20 pm
Given the closeness of the races, it doesn’t have to be all that widespread before it has an impact on Romney’s prospects.
That said, four years ago I persuaded my pastor (second to none in his theological objections to Mormonism) that he could safely follow his political judgment and vote for Romney in the Georgia primary. (I, by the way, voted for Huckabee then.)
March 14th, 2012 | 1:28 pm
One evangelical explained it to me this way: how can I vote for someone who believes he’s gonna be a god?
March 14th, 2012 | 1:38 pm
If I apply your logic and analysis of “Romney/Evangelicals” to “Santorum/Catholics,” it would be conclusive that Santorum *definitely* have a “Catholic Problem.”
March 14th, 2012 | 2:14 pm
I think it’s quite alright to aspire for greatness. If you’re a Jesus believer, you know Jesus he said this, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” That’s in the the King James version of the bible in Matthew 5:48
USA may one day elect a Hindu President. Will you not vote for him because they worship millions of Gods. Or because of their practice of worshipping their dead ancestors?
March 14th, 2012 | 2:24 pm
@Judy. My friend told me his evangelical mechanic one day walked out of his congregation for hearing the pastor at the pulpit bashing mormons as evil and so as the mormon presidential candidate. Mechanic-Evangelicals can think for themselves, too, I suppose.
March 14th, 2012 | 2:31 pm
Judy and Ancius, I wouldn’t doubt that you heard those things. Theologically, there are many objections that Evangelicals would have with Mormonism, and most conservative pastors would say so. The question will be if these people will make the distinction between religion and politics and that we are voting for a President and not a theologian – in – chief. I suspect that most will make the distinction, and if Romney is the nominee, they will pull the lever for him, some likely plugging their nose. But there will be some who either won’t make the distinction, or if they do, still won’t bring themselves to vote for him. The big question is “What percentage?”. Relating this to the article, we have to remember that McCain’s Baptist belief is far different than Romney’s Mormon belief in the eyes of Evangelicals. The strength of aversion toward Romney is likely to be greater than it was toward McCain four years ago. Being within shouting distance won’t help if there is a wide gulf that can’t be jumped between them. Some will make the jump. What percent won’t, and is it significant?
March 14th, 2012 | 2:36 pm
Is there something inherent in being Evangelicals that militates against voting for Romney, or is it just that Evangelicals tend to vote for conservatives and Romney is just not conservative enough?
It there are “theological” reasons for Evangelicals voting against Romney, isn’t this simply anti-Mormon bigotry?
March 14th, 2012 | 4:05 pm
David,
Two responses. First, I do think that some of the evangelical objection to Romney boils down to an assessment of his insufficient conservatism.
Second, I don’t see why a theological objection to someone’s religion has to be regarded as bigotry. Please explain to me why this is the case.
March 14th, 2012 | 4:22 pm
Gil, I do people the favor of assuming they know and accept the theology they profess. Theology has a deep and lasting effect on the way I view the world.
If a candidate believes in multiple physically discrete gods and that he may become one of the pantheon some day, I think that affects how he acts. It also factors into how I will vote.
March 14th, 2012 | 4:59 pm
Second, I don’t see why a theological objection to someone’s religion has to be regarded as bigotry. Please explain to me why this is the case.
Joseph Knippenberg,
I think most people of any given religion have some theological objections to anyone of a different religion. That is not bigotry. However, theological objections that disqualify a person as a candidate for president are another matter. I am trying to imagine what they would be. Perhaps someone can suggest some.
Many commenters here were quite incensed when it was suggested that Catholics might find it troubling that Michelle Bachmann’s church considered the papacy the anti-Christ. People were likewise incensed when Bachmann was asked to explain what she meant when she said she was “submissive” to her husband. The reaction of the studio audience at one of the debates was quite hostile when the question was asked. Is it the case that we shouldn’t judge “real” Christians by their religious beliefs, but it is okay to vote against a Mormon because of “theological disagreements”? As I recall, people were also quite incensed when questions were raised about George W. Bush’s Biblical beliefs and his conduct of foreign policy in the Middle East. The impression one gets is that it is impolite, at best, to make a political judgment about a presidential candidate based on his or her religious views.
It might make a certain amount of sense to take religion into account if the only thing you knew about a candidate was his or her religion. But Romney has been in the public eye for many years and even served as a governor. If there were something strange about his “theology” that would affect his performance in office, wouldn’t we know about it by now?
March 14th, 2012 | 7:47 pm
David, you raise some good issues. Should most religious views be kept out of the picture? Sure, and I don’t think there are any issues that would disqualify Mr. Romney. He ought to be judged by his positions and the way that he has governed. Most people, and even many evangelicals, will handle his candidacy this way. Most evangelicals will make a decision by whether he is sufficiently conservative or some other political reason.
Nevertheless, we cannot simply overlook the importance of religion, not simply for those who tie God and country together, but for those for whom deeply held beliefs make him/ her say “I can’t for that person” or “I don’t want to give that religion a platform.” Cuius regio, eius religio may not apply de jure. Nevertheless, in the minds of some, the leader of a country, to one extent or another, sets a standard de facto. It will at least be perceived as such by some- especially in this case where Mr. Romney is identified so closely with being Mormon [unlike Mr. Obama]. Is that religious bigotry? It may simply be that a person thinks that his/ her religious beliefs trump politics in this case. Will that be the case for most? No. Will that be the case for some? Yes.
March 14th, 2012 | 7:52 pm
One of the goodness of living in America, a country born of liberty and justice for all, *a free country*, is that you can profess your religion without being maligned. I am not sure if every American got this memo. Why I see people professing they are God-loving, God-fearing, God-serving and yet they act like they are holding pitchforks and ready to bbq their presidential candidate.
March 14th, 2012 | 8:15 pm
Bobster, I share some of your views. But, I also believe that the theological divide has the nastiest role in this. Theological ego will either make or break this nomination. Just don’t want to see the establishment will point fingers at the end. Who is to blame? The evangelicals, the conservatives, the moderates? I’m sure not the independents. I wonder what group of people will put Obama in or out of office. Just saying…
March 14th, 2012 | 9:12 pm
Gil, I don’t think they want to bbg the presidential candidate. Furthermore, they do believe in freedom of religion. In addition, they are not necessarily maligning him. But for that percentage for whom that religious issue is a factor, it will be hard to pull the lever- and they are free to decide however they do.
Btw, I should have translated above, “He who rules, his the religion.”
March 15th, 2012 | 1:29 am
I believe in the America Abe Lincoln wanted to protect so deeply ” …and that government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Don’t get distracted now, America! Vote your conscience at will. Whatever good or bad your vote produced, you are at the receiving end.
March 15th, 2012 | 2:04 am
Here is an excerpt from a 1960 Time article “Protestant Clergy Vs. the Catholic Candidate, JFK.” Question: are the theological disagreements to Kennedy’s candidacy expressed here examples of anti-Catholic bigotry?
“Soft on Catholicism. Dr. Peale presided over the meeting, according to two eavesdropping reporters, John J. Lindsay of the Washington Post and Times-Herald and ‘Our American culture is at stake,’ said Peale. ‘I don’t say it won’t survive, but it won’t be what it was.’
Dr. L. Nelson Bell, executive editor of the biweekly Christianity Today (paid and free circ.: 160,000) and father-in-law of Billy Graham, was more alarmed. Too many Protestants, said he, are ‘soft’ on Catholicism. ‘Pseudo tolerance is not tolerance at all but simply ignorance.’ If Jack Kennedy were to become President, he said, then Montana’s Mike Mansfield would become Senate majority leader and Massachusetts’ John W. Mc-Cormack would continue as House Democratic floor leader. ‘Both are fine men, but both belong to a church with headquarters in Rome.’ And to Bell, Rome was little better than Moscow: ‘The antagonism of the Roman church to Communism is in part because of similar methods.’ Dr. Harold J. Ockenga, of Boston’s Park Street Church, compared Kennedy to Nikita Khrushchev, saying that each is ‘a captive of a system.’”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,826609,00.html#ixzz1p9uRnfZW
Further questions:
1.) A Quaker refuses to allow her childen to play with Catholic children, lest they pick up ideas from them which she finds theologically repugnant. Is she being bigoted?
2.) A Quaker does not allow her teenaged children to date Catholics, fearing that they will be exposed to ideas that she finds theologically repugnant. She has also let her children know that, for similar reasons, she would strongly disapprove of their marriage with a Catholic. Is she being bigoted or not?
3. A Quaker printer refuses to hire a woman she knows to be an excellent candidate for a position at her business. She does this simply because that woman is Catholic, and she fears that her theological beliefs will affect how she acts in the workplace. Bigoted or not?
The same publisher refuses to do business with a monthly journal called F*rst Th*ngs simply because she finds the theology expressed in its pages to be too Catholic (once again, she finds Catholic theology to be repugnant), and she does not want to be involved in the dissemination of what she considers to be gross religious error. Is this a bigoted decision on her part?
4. Finally, our hypothetical Quaker refuses to vote for a candidate for president simply because the candidate is Catholic. She fears that not only will the candidate, if elected, be influenced by Catholic theology while in office but also that the mere presence of a Catholic as president will give his religious beliefs a platform and an aura of respectability. Bigotry or not?
My hypotheticals make reference to a Quaker because, of course, JFK’s opponent in the 1960 presidential race was Nixon, who was raised a Quaker. One wonders how sensible it would be to regard the 1960 Presidential race as being not Nixon vs Kennedy, nor Republican vs Democrat, but as Quaker vs Catholic.
March 15th, 2012 | 1:46 pm
“One of the goodness of living in America, a country born of liberty and justice for all, *a free country*, is that you can profess your religion without being maligned.”
On the contrary Gil, being in a free country means that the other guy has the right to malign you for what ever reason. Freedom requires that we each have to put up with a lot of things we may dislike. None of us have a right to be free of criticism.
March 15th, 2012 | 2:48 pm
Vote for somene who has
a) good moral standing
b) strong acumen to deal with the turmoils of the times
C) shown in record that he promoted a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
d) great love for America and that love and devotion will never ever be put on trial because the people that will vote for him already know so.
Voters should not let their bigotry cloud their minds. This pride on theology is just to ironic. Overkill and just getting in the way. But, what happen happens. Can’t be too serious about it, right? When too much is at stake. For all we know, it could be our religious freedom! Oh, wait. This adminstration is already starting to diminish that. Oh, well.
March 15th, 2012 | 3:45 pm
That is so true, Pastor. I don’t argue with your legitimate point. A free country, with freedom of speech. And that should always be the case. And the “other guy” that you mention has the right to malign, to criticize. The point that we put up with things we dislike and not being free of criticism. True. Sad fact and reality of life. True, true.
People will always have contention with one another. Another sad truth. But there is always that one resilient moment when a collective says, “enough is enough, let’s get on with it. Move on!”
Hardcore bullies I know in my school change. Perhaps, it is a wishful thinking to say a congregation full of critics can put their warring arms down. Settle down for the better good.
A good pastor can shepherd his flock to choose the better part and to admonish his congregation not to be like “the other guy”. Are you a Pastor that can inspire that to your congregation?
March 15th, 2012 | 3:55 pm
I would make a distinction between disagreeing with a candidate’s “theology” and disagreeing with his or her politics. As I said in another thread, the Catholic pacifist Dorothy Day said, “[I]t is better that the United States be liquidated than that she survive by war.” She had a religious/theological justification for that belief, but if she had been running for president and stating those views, it would not be necessary to delve into her “theology.” All I would need to know to vote against such a person was that she was a total pacifist. How the person arrives at that position is of little or no concern to me. It would not matter if she were a Catholic or an atheist. A pacifist would never get my vote in a presidential election.
What someone believes about fighting wars, although it may be based on religious beliefs, is in a different category than religious beliefs themselves. What a candidate believes about the Trinity, for example, is irrelevant unless that belief somehow translates into a political position. If someone is a Christian, and her or she just contemplate voting for Jews or Mormons because they don’t believe in the Trinity, then I would say that Christian is being “un-American.” It is in no way a legitimate requirement for the presidency to believe in the Trinity. Of course, it’s a secret ballot, and people have a right to vote for or against anyone for any reason. But that doesn’t make their votes immune from criticism.
March 15th, 2012 | 9:10 pm
So who are evangelicals gonna vote for – Obama? Not likely.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact