« The iRapture | Main | Murdoch The Scorpion »
July 02, 2007
Romney and the South
I haven't looked at a comprehensive round-up of South Carolina polls, but the new ARG survey -- and, for that matter, most recent SC polls -- certainly suggest that Romney is going to struggle in the South. Meanwhile, Edwards' hold on Iowa looks to me like it's weakening.
July 2, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
OT but time for another post on Jonah Lucianne's non-defense defense of his book. He even links to one of his friends' TWO non-defense-defenses of his book.
Posted by: gregor | Jul 2, 2007 2:10:28 PM
I believe it is time to reconcile ourselves with the prospect of Hillary the Democratic Nominee. Looking more and more inevitable.
Sigh what could have been.
Posted by: Jason G. | Jul 2, 2007 2:35:17 PM
I don't understand why Edwards isn't doing better. The national polls often show him to do well in overall opinion, but his money is low and among Democrats he just isn't doing as well as I would expect.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 2, 2007 2:36:33 PM
"Meanwhile, Edwards' hold on Iowa looks to me like it's weakening."
This suggests the opposite, depending somewhat on how you view Richardson.
Posted by: rilkefan | Jul 2, 2007 2:45:26 PM
I hate to say this, given that the phenomenon may take down a guy who might be a strong general election candidate and make it more likely that a Democrat gets elected in 2008, but I think, as a matter of principle, liberals need to do more than snark and laugh at this phenomenon of evangelicals who won't vote for a Mormon. Voters who think this way are bigots.
As a general matter, your faith shouldn't matter. It shouldn't matter for John Kennedy. It shouldn't matter for Joe Lieberman. And it shouldn't matter for Mitt Romney. While private voting behavior isn't governed by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution, certainly the spirit of American principles is that this stuff shouldn't matter.
One, of course, could make exceptions for religions that really believed obnoxious things. I wouldn't vote for a follower of David Koresh for anything, for instance. But I wouldn't vote for a secular member of NAMBLA for anything, either. It isn't the fact that the person is religious, but the content of those beliefs that is incompatible with elected office.
In any event, the Mormons are a perfectly respectable mainstream religion. The disputes between Mormons and evangelical Christians are purely theological. There isn't any evidence that Mormons aren't able to exercise independent judgment. Indeed, the Mormon religion is a uniquely American creation, something that started 180 years ago and had some kooky (and noxious) beliefs but which responded to criticism and has become a faith with much to admire, including a great devotion to family and the community.
In any event, the same religion that some seem to think disqualifies Romney from the Presidency would also disqualify Harry Ried from being Senate Majority Leader.
Really, this is a very bad road that the anti-Romney prejudice is leading us down. It should be condemned.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Jul 2, 2007 3:13:50 PM
The ARG polls have consistently overstated Clinton's support in both Iowa and NH compared to other polls. According to ARG Clinton has led every month in IA since December save one, so this poll actually shows no change.
These polls shouldn't be taken as evidence of a Clinton surge or an Edwards drop
Posted by: David | Jul 2, 2007 3:42:27 PM
Agreed with David - ARG polls are the only ones that ever show Clinton leading in Iowa. Any individual poll needs a grain of salt, especially one from an organization that shows consistent differences from most others. See here and here; a Mason-Dixon poll had Clinton and Edwards tied there. The last ARG poll, at the end of May, had Clinton ahead of Edwards 31-25.
I wonder more about why Edwards is where he is in South Carolina, where he won in 2004.
Posted by: SDM | Jul 2, 2007 4:08:35 PM
Note that my link above combines many polls, avoiding statistical fluctuations.
Posted by: rilkefan | Jul 2, 2007 5:03:09 PM
Dilan, the word you're looking for is schadenfreude. Of course people shouldn't hold Romney's religion against him. But no one forced him to compete for the nomination of a party that actively exploits that sort of bigotry. He wouldn't be having this problem in the Democratic primary.
The Republican base rejects a lot of potential candidates for reasons that I, as a Democrat, find utterly incomprehensible. It's beyond my control.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 2, 2007 5:08:25 PM
Dilan - I agree liberals should pay attention to the Mormon vs. Evangelical debate, but I think we should be clear - there is a theological argument here in which we have no role to play at all. At base, evangelicals are not concerned about "independence" from church doctrine... what they don't like is Mormonism, and specifically the Book of Mormon, which suffers from a tale of dubious origin and claims by Mormons to contain the word of God. That, rather obviously, flies in the face of struct biblical teachings, as evangelicals understand them. This is not a minor issue - which, sadly, is how the press likes to play it, because most of them don't really dive into these discussions either. I've long suspected that Romney will flame out spectacularly, and that conservatives who pooh-pooh the notion that there's a serious evangelical opposition to him are simply being wishful. Where questions of Romney's "independence" from Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) would come into play is more in the general, where some less religious people would probably wonder, as people did with Kennedy and the Pope. We may yet have to actually confront that discussion, but as issues go, I don't think that would ruin Romney (in the general, he'll be done in as a flip flopper). But mainly, I think we'll never know, because Romney will meet a firewall in the South, and not get past it.
PS Sanpete, I think the sad reality is that Edwards is simply not cutting it - the poverty and "Two Americas" stuff doesn't resonate, and he's been hamstrung by a series of gaffes that his most ardent supporters would like to write off with each occurrence but have made for a steady drip drip of missteps and flubs. I know akaison and others will say I'm just being negative on Edwards because I support someone else, but really, I wanted Edwards to make the case. And I just don't think he has. That, to me, is what's driving his lack of success.
Posted by: weboy | Jul 2, 2007 5:15:45 PM
If Romney were running as a democrat he "wouldn't have this problem" (ie mormonism?)
My g-d he'd have the problem of bigoted religious attacks in *spades* because now every suspect creedal belief of the mormons (own your own planet? polygamy? blacks as sub-human? etc...etc..etc...) would be discussed and amplified through the right wing/talk radio echo chamber as a symbol of all that is wrong *with democrats* plus plus double plus accusations of "looking too good" and "too much hair" and probably cheating on his wife/and or being gay and the host of other run of the mill anti democratic candidate slurs.
Right now Romney's only being subjected to a whispering campaign which owes as much to the evangelical right wing's inability to imagine just how weird mormonism is, or how unchristian it is. In other words the shrieks of outrage which would arise in a new york minute if Romney were a rich democrat are muted by class and race issues and fantasies among the evangelicals. Just my feeling--its the same one that led upper class pundits to be sure they knew how alito or roberts would *really* vote and to then be shocked to find out that they are staight up right wing hacks. Something about a white guy in a suit just says "respect my authoritah" to these guys.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jul 2, 2007 5:22:14 PM
Could be, weboy, though I think the gaffes ought to matter less to Democrats than the general public, while the polling seems to show the opposite. It may be that the basic message hasn't caught on well, but whose has? I've wondered if it isn't something less tangible, just the image he projects being not as strong or something. Both Obama and Clinton project strong images.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 2, 2007 5:27:32 PM
That previous post is about Edwards, of course.
I think aimai makes a good point about the extra difficulties that would face a Mormon Democrat on the Right. And a fair number of liberals might have extra doubts too. Polygamy, the failure to give blacks the priesthood until 1978 (aimai exaggerates for effect, I assume, in the "subhuman" comment), the opposition to gay rights, lots of troubles there for a Mormon among liberals.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 2, 2007 5:34:26 PM
A bit of both Sanpete - I agree his image issues are a problem, but I think Obama is proving that the image can BE the message, basically a "gee we should all be good to one another and have government that works" and other vague, generally uplifting bromides. And that, really, is my only problem with Obama: love the image, I just need something more substantive to close the deal. Edwards, I think has picked a message (not to sound too above it all, but poverty is depressing) that is a surprisingly hard sell, and I just think he's not selling it well. Which, I agree, is odd... but still seems to be the case.
Aimai, I think the interesting issue lurking in your post is that Mormons see themselves naturally, as conservatives. I agree, a Mormon Democrat would face the problems you point out... but Mormons think they fit comfortably with the GOP, and I get the impression they're bewildered that they're not accepted as the good, God believing people they are. That they're not - and they're really not, in some cases - is what makes Romney's failure to connect so intriguing. A liberal of vague to no religious background could be forgiven for thinking this is a small, narrow debate. To the people having it, it's huge.
Posted by: weboy | Jul 2, 2007 5:43:02 PM
Just to sharpen the distinction vis a vis Mormonism and evangelical Christians. Mormons believe their religion is the product of divine revelation via the "Prophet" Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. For them the Book of Mormon is not only on a par with the Old and New Testament, its authority is actually greater since it presents revelations not contained or alluded to in the traditional bible.
This claim of superior authority devolves upon the LDS as a whole and upon Joseph Smith and his successors in the role of "prophet, seer and chief revelator." The custom of refering to all those outside the LDS as "gentiles" is reflective of this.
Now while all evangelicals believe they represent the "true church" of Christianity, no sect of any size proclaims a new revelation and scripture superceding that of the Gospels, or claims a single leader with such divine gifts. The division between Mormonism and all other Christian sects, not just evangelicals, is fundamental and profound.
Put simply, if the Mormons are right, the evangelicals are preaching false doctrine. If the evangelicals are right, the Mormons are preaching false doctrine. They are, as a matter of doctrine and belief, irreconciliable.
Weboy, what makes me suspect you of bias is that it's far too early to be pronouncing the last rites over any of the three leading candidates. So why the persistent itch on your part to tag Edwards as DOA?
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 2, 2007 5:57:44 PM
My g-d he'd have the problem of bigoted religious attacks in *spades*
Right, of course he would, but not in the Democratic primary.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 2, 2007 6:32:34 PM
My theory about projecting strength doesn't really explain Edwards doing better overall than with Democrats either. Nor does the poverty message, which you'd think would resonate less outside the Party, not more. I don't get it.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 2, 2007 6:35:03 PM
Right, of course he would, but not in the Democratic primary.
Maybe we'll see someday, but I think there would be attacks on his religious beliefs among Democrats too, mostly for the reasons I mentioned earlier, and maybe some just for being more obviously religious in a peculiar way.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 2, 2007 6:38:36 PM
Nor does the poverty message, which you'd think would resonate less outside the Party, not more. I don't get it.
Perhaps because, contrary to conventional wisdom, people outside the Democratic party are concerned about poverty? Perhaps because the Democrats themselves have bought into the CW and think they can't win on an anti-poverty platform?
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 2, 2007 7:20:22 PM
Perhaps because, contrary to conventional wisdom, people outside the Democratic party are concerned about poverty?
More than Democrats are?
Perhaps because the Democrats themselves have bought into the CW and think they can't win on an anti-poverty platform?
Then why the great support for Clinton, who's widely regarded as unelectable?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 2, 2007 8:13:09 PM
Well, the June 26 poll from Bill Richardson's campaign, which isn't mentioned on the RCP page, has Edwards leading Hillary 34-24 in IA. There's no reason why Richardson would want to artificially elevate Edwards' standing, so I don't see a reason to mistrust these numbers as far as that goes.
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/06/richardson-poll-richardson-up-in.html
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 2, 2007 10:43:19 PM
Then why the great support for Clinton, who's widely regarded as unelectable?
I don't know, Sanpete. Why do people support one candidate who they think can win, but not a different candidate who they think can't win? It's so odd!
Posted by: Steve | Jul 3, 2007 12:52:07 AM
Steve, I think you misread. The question would be "Why do people support one candidate who they think can't win, but not a different candidate who they think can't win?"
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 1:41:15 AM
Steve, I think you misread. The question would be "Why do people support one candidate who they think can't win, but not a different candidate who they think can't win?"
Actually it appears you are the one who misread, or perhaps miswrote. You didn't specify who it was that thinks Hillary is unelectable. What you actually said was:
Then why the great support for Clinton, who's widely regarded as unelectable?
If you intended the ambiguous phrase "widely regarded" to refer to Hillary's supporters, I would disagree. I think, absent evidence to the contrary, that her supporters believe she can win. If you were refering to Edwards and Obama supporters, their opinion could be dismissed as merely partisan. Likewise the opinions of GOP stalwarts.
But why play guessing games? Provide some tangible content for "widely regarded" and your question will be more tractible to an intelligent response.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 3, 2007 11:57:24 AM
WBR, the comment I was responding to was about "the Democrats," so that's who I referred to in response. I doubt very much that the same people who think a poverty message can't win (something I've heard relatively little complaint about) are unaware of Clinton's far more obvious electability issues, which would be far harder to fix than a poverty focus would be.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 3:10:17 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
