« You Know What The Put on Their Man Dates in Holland Instead of Ketchup? Mayonnaise. | Main | What's Missing From This Ad? »
November 28, 2007
Where Things Go South For Romney
Paul Waldmann and Dana Goldstein discuss various dimensions of an Edwards-Romney race, but here's what I see as the most interesting one: what happens with the religious fundamentalists in the GOP base wigged out by Romney's Mormonism? Pam Spaulding notes an influential Dallas pastor expressing the widely held view that Mormons aren't Christians, and that this disqualifies Romney from the presidency. With Romney's religion priming them to look at everything through an even more identity-politics tinted lens than usual, would GOP base voters seek the demographic comfort of a Democrat with a mainstream Christian background and a thick southern accent?
In fact, this is what the polling data suggests. In SurveyUSA's state-by-state polls, Edwards beats Romney by 6 in Alabama and by 10 in Kentucky, while no other Democrat leads any Republican in these states. In the other two states of the old Confederacy polled, MO and VA, Edwards' lead over Romney is the biggest for any Democrat over any Republican.
With the fifteen years of anti-Hillary propaganda that GOP base voters have been fed, you could get them to come out and vote for a wadded-up piece of aluminum foil over her. And the sorts of GOP base voters who freak out at the thought of Romney are probably going to believe really weird things about Obama. Which is not to say that Hillary and Obama can't beat Romney nationally -- they probably would. But Edwards alone has a chance to neutralize or convert people in the core of the GOP base.
November 28, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
...what happens with the religious fundamentalists in the GOP base wigged out by Romney's Mormonism?
I think similar points could well be made vis a vis an Edwards-Giuliani match. The latter's twice-divorced, cross-dressing, formerly-nice-to-gays-and-immigrants, New York-accented, lapsed Catholic persona will surely be a tad too, er, exotic, for many a fundie in a general election.
Posted by: Jasper | Nov 28, 2007 10:39:07 PM
Somewhat non sequitur, but don't forget that every state in the South (except Florida) has a Senate seat up for grabs in 2008. Edwards will probably put more of those seats into play than the other candidates.
Posted by: Carlos | Nov 28, 2007 10:41:07 PM
It's not clear that forming a national coalition that includes the Deep South is a good thing. "Would win Alabama" might be a reason to vote against Edwards, if the Dems are going to win anyway.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Nov 28, 2007 10:49:15 PM
If Clinton or Obama is the nominee, every repug, dead or alive will rise like Lazarus to vote for whichever piece of vegetation the GOP manages to nominate.
A Mormon, a populist, an alien is better than Hillary or Barack according to this bunch.
Posted by: CParis | Nov 28, 2007 11:02:45 PM
It's not clear that forming a national coalition that includes the Deep South is a good thing.
Right, it's not clear. It's just wicked fucking obvious. Unless, unlike me, you're a fan of short coattails and thin congressional margins.
Anyway, I don't think Democrats can afford to take the attitude that we'll "win anyway." I'd like to think it's true. Indeed, I expect a Democratic win in 2008 like most people. But there's no cause at this juncture to take anything for granted or assume it will be a cakewalk.
Posted by: Jasper | Nov 28, 2007 11:06:38 PM
I think a good bit of this is cart before the horse - Edwards needs to prove himself viable to Democrats before we wonder how viable he'll look to Republicans; the fact is religious based discomfort with Romney and/or Giuliani will be a facet of this race should either one of them get the nomination, whoever the Democrat is - and yes, that includes Mrs. Cinton. It's part of the reason the GOP has deep problems that are theirs, not ours (i don't get the sense that a lot of non-religious Dems really understand the contours of the internal GOP tensions of Romney, Mormonism, and the Church of LDS, for one thing). Do I think Edwards would have some curb appeal to disaffected Southern, religious voters uncomfortable with a social moderate or a Mormon? Of course; and by the way, he's good looking, too, and people are shallow. I'm not sure any of that solves the problems he's having appealing to Democrats, me included. And I think that's especially true when we talk about Romney, because saying Edwards has an appeal to the anti-Mormon religious right seems like the faintest praise I can imagine - there's a new "southern strategy" that seems nearly as problematic as the one we've got now.
Posted by: weboy | Nov 28, 2007 11:09:28 PM
But Edwards alone has a chance to neutralize or convert people in the core of the GOP base.
Perhaps neutralize, even confuse. But less conversion that you seem to think would happen. Edwards' membership in the Democratic party is enough to make his Christianity just as suspect as any Mormon's.
What we're seeing is the possibility that the Religious Right is smaller than they've appeared.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 28, 2007 11:09:40 PM
I was thinking about that, Jasper. But I'm concerned that Giuliani might be able to pull of the ghoulish move of using his terrible relations with the black community in NYC to appeal to Southern racists. We'll see how it plays out.
Carlos, I totally agree.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Nov 28, 2007 11:14:48 PM
Missouri was not part of the Confederacy; it was a slave state that remained part of the United States of America.
Posted by: Kiril | Nov 28, 2007 11:19:23 PM
Of course Edwards, Obama and Clinton would have no shot with religious voters if Huckabee is the choice
Posted by: Dingo | Nov 28, 2007 11:28:32 PM
Any Democrat (including even HRC) will probably destroy Romney in the general election. Besides being a Mormon (this isn't fair but given the bigotry of his politics, I don't have the slightest sympathy for him), he is a pretty transparent phony. I don't see this as a reason to vote for Edwards (of course Edwards would probably beat Romney like a drum, but so would any reasonable Democratic candidate in 2008). But go Mitt (in the GOP primary)!
Posted by: ikl | Nov 28, 2007 11:34:02 PM
Edwards alone has a chance to neutralize or convert people in the core of the GOP base.
Why don't the Dems exclusively run white Southern males? Then we're sure to win the precious South. While we're at it, why don't we nominate a war hero? That'll lock up the military-lovin' South, just like it did in 2004 ... this plan can't fail ...
Posted by: yave begnet | Nov 28, 2007 11:35:55 PM
Yeah. And if running a southerner doesn't work, we can just run to the right on social issues! Remember, if we don't have the Southern White Male vote, we're doing something wrong.
I like Edwards, Neil, but this is just lame. He's a good candidate, he's great on a lot of issues. You don't need this type of crap (southerners won't vote for a BLACK guy!) to make people like him.
Posted by: Sam L. | Nov 28, 2007 11:46:37 PM
I would caution that some of these numbers have changed. In particular Clinton now beats Romney in places like Kentucky and Kansas (!!). This makes me think it's more about Romney's low name recognition than anything having to do with Mormonism.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Nov 28, 2007 11:58:22 PM
You guys really think it isn't relevant whether a candidate could appeal to a broader spectrum of voters?
I'm not necessarily convinced that Edwards could, but if he could, this would be a deeply persuasive reason to choose him as the nominee.
Posted by: Jason C. | Nov 29, 2007 12:06:40 AM
In addition to Missouri, Kentucky also wasn't in the CSA, although the CSA claimed both states.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Nov 29, 2007 12:09:02 AM
What Kiril said. It is a little complicated (and very interesting) what happened with Missouri, though. The state government split and the rebel faction tried to secede, but the Unionist state government controlled the state for the whole war.
Posted by: Ben | Nov 29, 2007 12:20:28 AM
Ah, Julian beat me to it, sort of.
Posted by: Ben | Nov 29, 2007 12:21:26 AM
Right, it's not clear. It's just wicked fucking obvious. Unless, unlike me, you're a fan of short coattails and thin congressional margins.
Right, because while it would be appalling for a Dem. President to reappoint Bush Administration grandees to the Cabinet, giving voice to that portion of the population that most strongly supported the Administration would be awesome.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Nov 29, 2007 12:53:29 AM
I'm a wadded-up piece of aluminum foil, and I approved this message.
Posted by: Petey | Nov 29, 2007 12:56:58 AM
"Somewhat non sequitur, but don't forget that every state in the South (except Florida) has a Senate seat up for grabs in 2008. Edwards will probably put more of those seats into play than the other candidates."
I want to beat McConnell in Kentucky, Inhofe in Oklahoma, and Stevens in Alaska. Given Edwards' appeal to rural voters in red states, I think having him at the top of the ticket puts those seats in play in a way that Clinton and Obama just can't.
If you want cloture on things like universal healthcare and global warming legislation, this nomination race is pretty easy to figure.
Posted by: Petey | Nov 29, 2007 1:03:08 AM
And more generally, the Edwards effect is not a Southern effect, it's a rural effect.
In fact, if he ends up winning Iowa over the superior celebrity and bank accounts of Clinton and Obama, it's going to be purely because he's able to bring home rural Iowan caucus-goers en masse.
Posted by: Petey | Nov 29, 2007 1:22:31 AM
Obama bringing out more blacks in the South could be pretty useful down ticket even if it doesn't do enough to make him competitive in Southern states. I agree that Edwards would be much better than Clinton down ticket in the South. As far as the Presidential election goes, there are only 7 states that matter much and only 1 of them is in the South (Florida). And I doubt that Florida will be decisive next year - Ohio will likely be the make or break state (unless we lose Wisconsin or something like that).
Posted by: ikl | Nov 29, 2007 1:41:30 AM
"As far as the Presidential election goes, there are only 7 states that matter much and only 1 of them is in the South (Florida)"
Yes and no.
You can certainly win the thing without the South if you win Ohio and hold the whole upper Midwest.
But if you just steal a state or two in the South, say FL, VA, NC, KY, or MO, then the whole ballgame is over without having to worry about WI or MN or OH being too close for comfort.
Poach anything on the fringes of the South, and it's no longer a 50/50 Presidential map.
The goal shouldn't just be to regain the WH in '08. We should be redrawing the map in '08.
Posted by: Petey | Nov 29, 2007 1:53:41 AM
Edwards alone has a chance to neutralize or convert people in the core of the GOP base.
Except for the whole tarring-him-as-a-homosexual thing.
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Nov 29, 2007 7:37:00 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
