Recently in Romney Category

We know about the political Gender Gap: the tendency of women vote Democratic and men to vote Republican. And we know about the God Gap: the tendency of the more religious to vote Republican and the less religious to vote Democratic. To these two (discussed here) we should start thinking about a third gap, more limited in scope but nevertheless of real potential significance. Call it the Mormon Gap: the tendency of evangelicals to vote disproportionately against Mormon candidates in Republican primaries.

The Mormon Gap may be defined as the percentage-point difference between the evangelical and the non-evangelical vote for a given Mormon candidate. Despite reports from the field alleging that Mitt Romney's Mormonism is less of a factor this primary season than it was in 2008, the Mormon gap has thus far not shrunk. To the contrary.

As I've noted before, Romney did worse with evangelicals in this year's Iowa Caucuses than he did four years ago. Then the Mormon Gap (Evangelicals/Non-Evangelicals) was 14 points (19/33); this year it was 24 points (14/38). In New Hampshire, the gap was seven points in 2008 (27/34) and nine points this year (31/40). In South Carolina, the gap was 8 points in 2008 (11/19); according to the latest PPP poll, it's now running at 18 points (21/39).

Now you might think that what we're looking at is not a Mormon Gap but a Romney Gap. But there's a good piece of evidence that suggests that this is not just about Romney. In this year's New Hampshire primary there was a second Mormon candidate who did well enough for a Mormon Gap to be assessed. And in John Huntsman's case the gap was 10 points (9/19).

Of course, given contests with different proportions of evangelical voters and multiple candidates finishing with varying vote totals, the significance of the Mormon Gap changes from state to state. In Iowa and South Carolina, where evangelicals make up some 60 percent of the Republican electorate, it's very significant. In New Hampshire, where they are less than a quarter, not so much: Romney's 9-point gap reduced his total vote by just three percentage points.

How much does the Mormon Gap matter? After the 2008 election cycle, John Green and I ran the numbers and concluded that Mitt Romney lost the nomination because evangelicals didn't vote for him. If he loses the nomination this time around, it will be for the same reason.

It was, I'm afraid, a classic example of Freudian denial when, back in 2007, the dean of Bob Jones University endorsed Mitt Romney as the GOP presidential nominee with the phrase, "we're not electing a pastor--we're electing a president." The phrase, which became something of a commonplace among Romney's backers on the religious right, pointed to the fact that during the presidency of George W. Bush evangelicals did indeed come to view the president as pastor-in-chief. Remember that scene in the 2006 documentary "Jesus Camp" where the children do spiritual warfare before a cardboard cutout of President Bush? By then evangelicals had become accustomed to referring to him as "our Christian president," and the hope was that he would not be the last of his kind.

And that's where the anti-Mormon rubber hits the road. It really does bother a lot of evangelicals that the occupant of the White House should manifest the spiritual potency of the office on behalf of a religion they consider beyond the pale. Not that they like thinking of themselves as bigots who need to have a white male evangelical in the nation's bully pulpit. So in the year of Hillary, they eagerly embraced Sarah Palin. Setting their early sights on the dislodging our first black president, they warmed to Herman Cain. And now, with a Mormon poised to pluck the nomination for his own, they may be turning to a dyed-in-the-wool Roman Catholic: Rick Santorum.

Whether Santorum can actually assemble enough evangelical support to give Romney a hard time down South remains to be seen. He's got to come out of New Hampshire as a plausible number 2 and then needs to win South Carolina, if he's to become the Mike Huckabee of 2012. Huckabee's campaign, you'll recall, did not "fizzle...beyond Iowa," as Alex Altmann unaccountably wrote over at Swanpland yesterday. Winning primaries in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana does not count as fizzling. If Santorum can do something along those lines, he sets himself up very nicely to become Romney's veep. (Nota bene: Santorum strongly endorsed Romney in 2008.) And thus to become an acceptable Lt. Pastor at the right hand of the LDS president.

It's possible that the overt anti-Mormonism expressed by Robert Jeffress and Bryan Fischer represents little more than frantic concern among the evangelical elite that the Republican nomination is in imminent danger of slipping into the hands of a heretic. As Sarah Posner pointed out over the weekend, last time around the anti-Mormonism was more discreet. When you've got the likes of Pat Robertson willing to accept Mitt Romney as the party's Christian standard-bearer, it's no wonder that the more excitable Christian Americanists find themselves on the anxious bench. In these economic hard times, the rank and file are going to be more concerned with choosing the candidate most likely to defeat Barack Obama, no?

Not likely. A few months ago, the Pew Research Center's Carroll Doherty pointed out that white evangelicals are just as loath to vote for a Mormon now as they were back in 2007. Then, their reluctance to do so cost Romney the nomination. That, at least, was John Green's and my conclusion, in an article that relied on a regression analysis of the state Republican primary returns--which, unfortunately, has escaped the notice of TPM. Of course, you never dip your toe into the same electoral river twice, and given the absence of a Huckabee or a McCain, Romney may well swim easily away with the nomination this time. But if, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council hinted, "values voters" coalesce around a single un-Romney, he will have his work cut out for him.

In last evening's GOP presidential debate, Mitt Romney was asked by Byron York of the Washington Examiner whether he thought state legislators (as in New York) had the right to make same-sex marriage legal in their states. Romney answered:

I'd far prefer having the [representatives of the] people make that decision than justices. But I believe the issue of marriage should be decided at the federal level.

You might wonder why is that? Why wouldn't you just let each state make their own decision? And the reason is because people move from state to state of course in a society like ours, they have children. As to go to different states, if one state recognizes a marriage and the other does not, what's the right of that child? What kind of divorce proceeding potential would there be in a state that didn't recognize a marriage in the first place?

There are--marriage is a status. It's not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state. And a result our marriage status relationship should be constant across the country.

I believe we should have a federal amendment in the constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and woman, because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and a dad.

The follow-up question I'd like to have asked is: "So, governor, do you believe than that the Supreme Court was right to uphold federal anti-polygamy laws in its 1890 Reynolds decision?" That may be a "gotcha" question, but Romney knows as well as any American religious historian that in 19th-century inter-mountain Mormonism the doctrine of plural marriage was as deeply held as a religious doctrine can be. Are the complexities of interstate family law and a belief in a one-mom-one-dad ideal sufficient to trump a central tenet of a faith tradition--not least, your own?

After avoiding "white evangelicals" like yesterday's coffee, the political reporting class has dusted off its old Rolodexes and discovered that when it comes to Iowa, it's all about, well, white evangelicals. As in, where's the Huckabee vote going? The big deal event of the summer is the Ames straw poll August 13, which WaPo's Chris Cilizza has pronounced to be Michele Bachmann's to lose. At the moment, that seems an easy call, since this exercise in organizational muscle has turned into a contest to see who will serve as Evangelical Challenger to The Mormon. Mitt Romney, the national frontrunner who won Ames easily four years ago (but then lost the GOP Caucus to Huckabee), has decided to sit this one out, as has his co-religionist John Huntsman. Bachmann's got the organizational leg up, plus by far the most evangelical pizzazz--though she should think twice before signing every family values pledge that comes down the pike.

Meanwhile, and not coincidentally, anti-Mormonism is on the march again. Once upon a time, when the likes of Al Smith and Jack Kennedy ran for president, the slimier forms of anti-Catholicism only circulated underground. Now their anti-Mormon equivalents are published by CNN. And where once serious religious leaders and sober editorial pages turned out to condemn the stuff, in the present media free-for-all, it's given a pass--and even indulged in. Four years ago, Romney may have fallen short of Kennedyesque performance, but he deserved far more in the way of principled condemnation of bigotry than he got. What anti-Mormon activist Tricia Ericson has to say is not merely "provocative" and "inflammatory," it's appallingly un-American:

Yes, it is my opinion that an indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President of the United States of America. Indoctrinated temple Mormons (as Romney is) have experienced years of brainwashing and indoctrination and also have made covenants and oaths that they plainly cannot disobey...

Long story short, it would be near to impossible for an entrenched Mormon to place his allegiance to the United States of America over the Mormon Church.  After Mitt's death oaths to the church, it is my belief that he lied about this to the American people and will continue to do so.

It is past time for editorial pages and columnists and religious leaders to take such views seriously and condemn them in no uncertain terms. And that goes especially for those religious leaders whose flocks are most susceptible. That means you, Land, Warren, Leith, Jakes, Robertson, etc. etc. etc.

Update: And Bachmann is now out in front of the rest of the field, including Romney, in the Hawkeye State.

Mitt Romney's refusal to sign the "Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge" cooked up by the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List looks like smart politics to me. The pledge is nowhere near as straightforward as the the quadrennial Republican Party platform's abortion plank, which for a generation has called for a constitutional ban. Rather, it's a carefully calibrated political document that tightens the screws on presidential appointments and the use of public funds, and promotes a new "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." I'd say it was designed to be acceptable to any GOP candidate capable of winning the nomination, while serving as an effective wedge in the general election.

By choosing to discern problems with the pledge while insisting on his pro-life cred, Romney has managed to demonstrate his independence from his party's interest groups, cuddle up to GOP moderates, and differentiate himself from (most of) the rest of the presidential field. In contrast to 2008, he actually looks like a guy with backbone. And in a year when the supreme Republican object is to defeat the incumbent--when Republican Tea Partiers say they're more likely to vote Republican than non-Tea Party Republicans--Romney's put the wind at his back. No wonder his opponents are shocked and dismayed.

Two years ago, John Green and I wrote that in his last run for the nomination, Romney

made a strategic error in aggressively seeking evangelical support by altering his social issue positions. Doing so likely weakened his appeal to Republican voters outside the social conservative fold, and may even have lost him ground among evangelical voters, not only by playing into their anti-Mormon views but also by underscoring the importance of religious criteria in choosing a president.

At the Faith and Freedom meeting earlier this month, Romney merely informed the evangelical audience that "we're united tonight on a lotta things." I'd say he's come to the same conclusion we did.

Both Mormon presidential wannabes showed up at Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition (FFC) confab in Washington and managed to let the white evangelicals in the audience know who they were without actually using the M-word. After beginning his talk with a litany of anti-abortionism, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman gave a big shout-out to the people of his state and to the magnificence of its super well-run government and super prosperity, perhaps not realizing that nothing annoys white evangelicals more than having to acknowledge the kempt successes of Mormon lives and communities.

As for Mitt Romney, he began by noting that there "we're united tonight in a lotta things," which is to say, there's that thing that we're not united in, that bit me in the butt last time around. Before that, there was his youthful wife Ann, who introduced her husband by mentioning her 16 grandchildren. Sixteen?? And what about your sister wives?

Yes, the emergence of the FFC (which may or may not become a readily identifiable acronym) has provoked a spate of familiar talk about whether or not those pesky evangelicals will support a Mormon for president. Helpfully, Pew came out with a new survey last Thursday that provides some insight into the question. Amy Sullivan rings the changes on it; cutting to the chase, nothing much has changed from four years ago, when one-third of evangelicals said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon--way more than any other religious group. Less helpfully, Pew doesn't present a simple cross-tabulation showing which candidates white evangelical Republicans like in the current GOP field--something that's done for Tea Partiers. C'mon, Pew!

If the question at hand is whether white evangelicals are going to sink a Mormon candidacy in the GOP primaries, then what we want to know is whom they're going to vote for, whether or not they say they're "less likely" to vote for a Mormon. At this point, according to Pew, Romney has the highest name recognition of any candidate in the field other than Palin and Gingrich, and whereas 39 percent and 38 percent of GOP voters who recognize the latter two say they wouldn't vote for them, as Amy notes, only 18 percent who recognize Mitt say they wouldn't vote for him--lowest in the entire field (tied with the relatively unknown but currently hot Herman Cain). So while there is a high correlation between those who say they're less likely to vote for a Mormon and those who say they won't vote for Mitt Romney, that doesn't add up to big negatives. Maybe evangelical anti-Mormonism will be no biggie, this time around.

According to the latest WaPo/ABC poll, Mike Huckabee is the top choice for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Mitt Romney is a close second. The Post's lede this morning is that Sarah Palin's numbers among Republicans are heading south, which is a good story. But I've yet to see Beltway political scribes giving Huck serious attention this time around, much less talk about the prospects of a two-man race between Huck and Mitt. The CW is that it's got to be someone else, since both Huck and Mitt are 2008 stories.

To the contrary, I'd say the story at this point is the candidate of the evangelical base against the candidate of the GOP establishment. The wedge between them? Sharia. Huck has been one of the loudest voices in the GOP anti-Islam chorus. Mitt, a member of a minority faith that suffered profoundly at the hands of American Protestant bigots, has studiously stayed away from Muslim bashing--and, indeed, has drawn some right-wing flak for it. Huckabee's played the religion card against Romney before. Don't be surprised if he does it again. As in: "Governor, do you support proposed legislation in Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, etc. to ban Sharia law?"

Gallup's new portrait of GOP presidential candidate preferences by issue preference displays some moderately interesting features. Among frontrunners Huckabee, Romney, and Palin, Huckabee is the choice of social conservatives; Romney, of economic conservatives; and Palin, of foreign policy conservatives. Mostly the differences are not great but a couple stand out. Huckabee is weak with those Republicans who care most about business. And Romney is very weak with the moral values crowd, who prefer Huckabee to him by a 4-1 margin. In other words, the two stand exactly where they were last presidential cycle.

As of today, 31 percent of GOP voters think business/economic issues are the most important, compared with 17 percent who think moral/social issues are. If the economy continues to improve, the gap should narrow--which is good news for Huck, and bad for Mitt.

In a post on who gets the vote of "religious conservatives," Steve Waldman writes:

That leaves Huckabee. As a former Baptist minister himself, he has standing to criticize Palin without being cast as anti-Christian. Mainstream media mistakenly assume that Huckabee failed last time because his base was too limited to religious conservatives. Actually, he fared no better among Christians than McCain and Romney early on. He was distrusted by many in the party for being too liberal, not for being too conservative.

This is entirely misconceived. As any examination of the exit polls from last year's GOP primaries will show you, Huckabee did fail because he had trouble drawing beyond his base of white evangelicals. They loved him. The distrust came from so-called leaders of the religious right, whose suspicion arose, at least in substantial part, because they didn't think he could win. His "liberal" moment was over after Iowa. As for faring no better among Christians than McCain and Romney, that's only if you include all Christians--Catholics and and Mainline Protestants and Mormons as well as Evangelicals. Huckabee couldn't win the former, for sure. But Catholics and Mainline Protestants do not constitute the conservative religious base of the GOP. C'mon, Steve!

The big question for GOP big shots at the moment has to be whether Mitt Romney can manage to garner enough rank-and-file evangelical support to marginalize Huckabee. So look for Romney to play a big role in fighting the Proposition 8 repeal referendum. Where has Romney just bought a new home? La Jolla, California.

Update: I don't appear to be the only one with this thought.