I thought the story on this letter from Mark DeMoss, an evangelical who supports the Romney campaign, was interesting. His main purpose is to rally conservative evangelicals to Romney and to warn against the nomination of Rudy Giuliani, who could be described either as socially moderate or liberal, depending on your perspective.
One key comment:
He went on to say, “as a Southern Baptist evangelical and political conservatives, I am convinced I have more in common with most Mormons than I do with a liberal Southern Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic or a liberal from any other denomination or faith group.”
Other interesting comments:
But at the heart of his memo is a series of hypotheticals. “Someone is almost certain to appoint two, three, or four justices to the Supreme Court. Do we want that person to be Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney?”
“Someone will deal with the definition of marriage in America — and will either defend and model a faithful marriage and strong family, or not. Who should that person be?”
“Someone will either defend unborn life — or defend those who place their rights and deisres above those who can’t be defined themselves. Would we prefer that Clinton, Giuliani or Romney be in that position?”
I don’t expect the majority of people who comment on posts in the Bloggernacle to agree with DeMoss’ perspective, but I thought it was nonetheless noteworthy.
My take as a Romney supporter: I’m going to vote for Romney, and campaign for him, in Florida. But if Giuliani wins, I don’t consider it a tragedy for the Republican party. Giuliani’s moderate-to-liberal social views will be offset by his need to shore up support with the conservative base. It would be a tragedy if social conservatives started a third-party movement, because that would assure Hillary gets elected. I believe Giuliani will most likely nominate originalist Supreme Court judges, although there are some who argue he will set his own course and we may get Harriett Miers types.
But I agree with DeMoss’ take that Romney is more likely to appoint the types of judges I agree with and support pro-family efforts than Giuliani. That’s one of the reasons I support Romney.
I’m still undecided as to who I will support in the Republican party. But, like you, would not see a Giuliani win as a tragedy. Actually, I think he could be very effective running against Clinton.
Slight threadjack: I was reading a book about the Clintons that basically said that Whitewater and the Lewinsky affair (no pun intended) became PR and legal disasters for the Clintons because of Hillary. Bill is the politician of the family and Hillary is the great stonewaller.
Back on topic, I think as the date of the primary draws closer–especially if he wins the nomination–Romney’s religion will be less of an issue for Republicans.
It is incorrect to describe Romney as “pro-family.” He is certainly not “pro-family” when it comes to my family. To the contrary, he has put the lie to his former campaign promises by carrying on a distinctly “anti-family” crusade against my family and other families like mine.
Wow, Nick, I am really surprised that you couldn’t find anything good to say about Mitt Romney. 🙂 Well, for the record, he is certainly pro-family when it comes to my family. But you’re entitled to your opinion.
I nearly voted for Bush in 2004 on that same line (what about the Supreme Court justices?!?). I instead voted for Badnarik (Libertarian) and am glad that someone in the Republican party with more of a small-government streak (Ron Paul) is running this time
In case anybody is wondering what the subject of this post is, here is an article that describes what I’d like commenters to focus on:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6300.html
To sum up: the subject of this post is “are conservative evangelicals going to coalesce around Mitt Romney because they have no other viable choice?” A secondary question could be: “do evangelical conservatives (in general) have more in common politically with Mormons than with liberal mainstream Christians?”
The point of this post is NOT to pick at some small issue with which you disagree with Mitt Romney or to post advertisements for other candidates (that means you, Ron Paul fanatics) UNLESS in so doing you actually make a comment that has something to do with the purpose of the post. For example, it would be appropriate to say, “actually Huckabee is more in line with conservative evangelicals than Romney because he is a Baptist minister.” In the case of Huckabee, you’d need to consider the fact that he has raised almost no money and doesn’t seem to be a viable candidate at this point in the game.
I think (hope) that a lot of the ruckus that evangelicals have been making about a third party is a shot across the bow that abortion and pro-life issues are their primary concern, not carrying the the water for the GOP.
That means that Giuliani would be unacceptable and Romney is probably their best bet. I wonder if the non-stop Mormon talk just makes it harder for them to openly embrace him. I hope Brian is right and as it gets down to the wire, the focus on religion will fade away.
David, thank you for keeping on-topic. You get a gold star.
Thanks for the star but I’m just a slow commenter 😉
Here is another story related to this topic that some may find of interest. My opinion is that evangelical leaders are beginning to rally around Romney, despite his being a Mormon. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but this is exactly what I predicted would happen on this blog several times earlier this year.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071011/NATION/110110080/1002
Article published Oct 11, 2007
Evangelical leaders warm to Romney
October 11, 2007
By Ralph Z. Hallow – Two social conservatives leaders — in surprise moves yesterday — criticized fellow evangelical and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, while praising another party hopeful, Mitt Romney, a Mormon.
Still, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer hope the former Massachusetts governor will passionately express his pro-life views at the Values Voter Summit Oct. 19 and 20 at the Washington Hilton.
Many evangelicals have shunned Mr. Romney, a Mormon who evolved from being pro-choice to pro-life on abortion.
The only evangelical in the top tier of candidates is Mr. Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, but he hasn’t won over the conservative leaders.
“I was disappointed that in a recent speech he suggested that we should offer economic incentives to Iran to deter their development of a nuclear bomb and urged more negotiations,” Mr. Bauer said. “I don’t see how you negotiate with a Holocaust denier.”
All nine major Republican candidates are expected to attend the summit briefing, where they will give 20-minute speeches to social conservative activists from across the country.
The leaders defended Mr. Romney’s evolution from pro-choice advocacy to the view that life begins at conception.
“I don’t think he’s flip-flopping,” Mr. Perkins said.
Mr. Bauer agreed that Mr. Romney’s change of heart was sincere, even though it “happened to coincide with a primary [election campaign] schedule.”
The conservative leaders hold mixed opinions about other leading Republican candidates.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona alienated much of the Christian right in his 2000 nomination bid with harsh words for evangelical leaders the Revs. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Mr. Perkins, however, said Mr. McCain has been improving his image, and cited Mr. McCain’s performance during Tuesday’s debate in Michigan.
Both men agreed that former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee also fared well during the debate on all issues, including those dear to social conservatives.
Rudolph W. Giuliani is the only pro-choice candidate in the Republican field and leads in national polls. Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bauer said the prospect of nominating the former New York mayor — especially if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York wins the Democratic contest — has triggered talk by evangelical and Catholic conservatives of fielding a pro-family third party.
Both men agreed that a third-party traditional-values candidacy would be all but doomed next year, and could siphon enough votes from the Republican nominee to put Mrs. Clinton in the White House.
“A third party would guarantee that for the next four years, Hillary Clinton, with a Democratic Congress, would make life miserable for social, economic and foreign-policy conservatives,” Mr. Bauer said.
One other point:
Underneath the media radar screen, Romney is beginning to surge in recent polls in South Carolina, which is arguably the most evangelical-dominated state right now. Take a look at the yellow line in this link from Realclearpolitics.com:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_primary-233.html
My personal take: evangelicals are beginning to rally around Romney because they don’t like McCain, Thompson is not exciting, Huckabee can’t win and Giuliani is a social liberal.
This may simply mean that Romney is the lesser of all of the evils for evangelicals. But it significantly increases his chance of getting the Republican nomination.
#3 Geoff: Actually, I do see some admirable traits in Romney. I just happen to have serious disagreements with many of his political positions–and you’re right, he’s “pro” your family. I just wish he didn’t think he needed to attack my family in order to be supportive of yours.
Regardless of what I think of his political positions, I pity the man if he actually gets elected. Nobody would think twice if an Episcopalian president happened to appoint an Episcopalian cabinet member. I guarantee you, however, that if Romney is elected and happens to appoint an LDS cabinet member (such as re-appointing Mike Leavitt), he’ll have people on both sides of the aisle screaming accusations that he’s favoring members of his church.
Nick, I agree with your second point, and it does raise some interesting questions. I think it is inevitable that if elected Romney will not be allowed (politically) to appoint any Mormons to Cabinet positions, regardless of whether or not they are qualified. Interestingly, if you read the list of his closest advisers, the vast majority of them are not LDS. I can tell you that most of the local campaign coordinators in Florida are not LDS. So perhaps it won’t be so difficult for Mitt to find qualified non-Mormons for his Cabinet.
But I agree he will have a different standard than any other recent presidents. No Catholics in the JFK cabinet? Uh, not really. How about his own brother (VERY Catholic RFK) as Atty General? Romney would not be allowed politically to do something like that.
I think most Americans are pretty pragmatic about their votes these days: they may say “I’d never vote for a Mormon” to a pollster, but that won’t be the thing most are thinking of when they see the name “Romney” on the primary ticket — just like I don’t think anyone will think “woman” when they see the name “Clinton.” I’m glad that some leaders in the evangelical community are encouraging those who listen to them to focus on actions and principles rather than labels.
I think the appointment issue also depends a LOT on a) what happens to Harry Reid in his next campaign) and b) which Mormons Romney would be appointing. Mike Leavitt wouldn’t be a problem on co-religionist grounds, for the fairly straightforward reason that he’s already doing the job. You can’t effectively argue that someone who was both Mormon and doing the job well should now be excluded because he’s Mormon: it doesn’t make sense. Joe Lieberman would be in far hotter water for hypothetically appointing a random prominent Jewish academic type to a foreign policy post — it’s still a stupid argument, but “Jews run US foreign policy” has a lot of traction amongst the gullible and bigoted. An openly gay president, today at least, would also have bigger problems (than Romney might with Mormon appointees) appointing openly gay non-incumbents to an office like HHS or Veteran’s Affairs or Defense (any place where there might be gay issues to decide.) That probably won’t be the case in twenty years, and I suspect that the appointing official’s status will become very unimportant very, very quickly — five years or so.
If he’s appointing former Governors, former Senators, some high-level executive from Marriott, etc., there will be bigger things to yell about than their religious affiliation. I mean, these days it’s enough to be a registered member of a political party for a quarter of the Senate to seriously talk about blocking the nomination indefinitely — and I don’t expect that to get much better any time soon.
Anyway, wasn’t the big deal about RFK that he was Kennedy’s brother? I suspect nepotism would be the rallying cry these days, though given the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton pattern that looks increasingly likely, it’d be an amusing rallying cry to watch. Maybe they’d go with the ‘lack of experience’ thing — or that he wasn’t doctrinaire enough as compared with his own party’s leading voices? Since he was a Democrat, it’d be MoveOn that would turn against him, and for no immediately discernible reason. ^_^
Sarah, I suspect that Romney, if elected, would have to avoid appointing not only former Marriot execs, but anyone even remotely connected with Bain Capital.
Harry Reid is one of Romney’s biggest assetts: a Mormon politician serving in the leadership of the U.S. Senate. Sure, he is a Democrat, but he is also Mormon and keeps his horns shaved and out of view. 🙂
I don’t see any particular reason people opposed to abortion would automatically be aligned with other Republican causes. An abortion opponent could very well love unions and want nationalized health insurance. Six years with a Republican president, House, and Senate didn’t do all that much to limit abortion, and Giuliani and a Democratic House or Senate would do even less. The difference in this matter between having Giuliani or Clinton in office would be pretty slim, so the anti-abortionists may as well show the Republicans that their votes shouldn’t be taken for granted.
Actually, John M, I think you can make a very strong argument that Pres. Bush — through his two Supreme Court nominees — has done more than any other president to end “abortion on demand in every state.” The Supreme Court is one justice away from potentially overturning Roe v. Wade and turning the issue back to the states. (And depending on Kennedy’s mood, that may even happen without replacing one of the liberals on the Court). We know Hillary will appoint more Ruth Ginsburgs — she has said as much. We know Romney will try to appoint more Roberts types. We don’t know what type Giuliani would appoint. Given how much Roberts is respected, I would think he would go that direction, but the point is you never know. Conservatives like myself are thinking: “what if he appoints another Warren or Souter?”
But I agree with you on your first point — you don’t need to be a Republican to be pro-life. Harry Reid is pro-life, and there are plenty of other Democrats who are. But the Republican party platform is pro-life, and the Democratic party platform is pro-choice. That’s one reason many people (but not all) line up that way.
Six years with a Republican president, House, and Senate didn’t do all that much to limit abortion
How about banning partial-birth abortion and appointing two justices that are not likely to uphold Roe v. Wade and federal judges who will follow suit if given the opportunity?
The courts have pretty much assumed all power over regulating abortion. The Bush admnistration has done as good as it can possibly do to limit abortion. Its influence will be better realized as the Supreme Court hears more abortion cases down the line. Perhaps not enough to overthrow Roe, but with more retirements, who knows?
The difference in this matter between having Giuliani or Clinton in office would be pretty slim
Which is exactly why the evangelical right had better get behind Romney if they really care about this issue.
I am sorry to say, but I simply do not believe that most evangelical Christians can overcome their prejudices and biases against mormons enough to make the sensible decision of supporting Mitt Romney. Just the other night on our local news here in Dallas, there were several evangelical ministers telling the people why they could never support a mormon to be president of the United States. I do not see this general coalescing of evangelicals, most of whom cannot see past “mormon”, around Mitt Romney, even though there is no doubt that he is the most likely candidate to champion their positions.
Unfortunately, most evangelicals hate mormon doctrine and the “mormons jesus” too much to support the person who is clearly the best candidate to champion their values. That will be their (and our) loss when Hilary winds up in the White House because of it… 🙁
But, the article Geoff cites to is encouraging. Still, I fear the worst here…
I’ve spent a lot of time in the Bible Belt and it won’t surprise me if today’s evangelicals put the “mormon” thing behind to focus on beating Hillary.
Me? I’ll vote for whoever I think can beat Hillary. It’s still too early to see whether Romney or Giuliani will be my guy. Right now I’m in ABH mode (Anybody But Hillary). And I mean ANYBODY.
If Geoff’s wrong and evangelicals or the greater Christian Right goes third party, it’s Clinton time, baby. God for-freaking-bid.
Let’s hope the evangelicals really can be as reasonable as Geoff claims for the reasons given by Tossman. My experience with them leads me to doubt it, though.
If you’re really in the ABH mode, I would suggest quickly getting to work on the Obama or Edwards campaigns, because, thanks to the great hero George W. Bush, it’s going to be very difficult for any Republican to win in 2008. Just look at how he continues to stubbornly undermine so many congressional representatives seeking reelection with his veto of the SCHIP program which would have added about a twentieth to the amount of federal spending as did the medicare prescription drug plan, which he so enthusiastically signed. Perhaps because that plan was more of a corporate welfare plan.
Bill, I would consider actively campaigning for Edwards if there was a realistic chance he could take votes from Hillary. Unfortunately, the Dems don’t have a Ron Paul to divide and conquer the party. As for Obama- why bother? Hillary will pick him as a running mate.
Re Leavitt and the Cabinet – look, he’s already been Secretary over two different departments. I think that Romney could potentially reappoint Leavitt on his own merits…
Re DeMoss’ letter itself – I agree with his basic premise, that the evangelicals really have no choice but to ignore the Mormon aspect and support Romney. I think they will weaken for a generation their influence if they help Giuliani.
Queuno, the more I think about it, the more I agree with your #24. I don’t think a guy like Leavitt would be that controversial. As for other Mormon Cabinet-level people, I guess it would depend on the person and the position.
As for Jordan’s number 18, this is of course the big question with regard to Romney. What percentage of people who would normally vote for a Republican will not vote for him no matter what because he is a Mormon? I read “Evangelicals For Mitt” and “Article VI blog” all of the time. The reality is that even right-leaving evangelicals don’t know what percentage of people when they are sitting looking at a ballot box that says “Hillary Clinton” and “Mitt Romney” will either vote for Hillary because they can’t vote for a Mormon or will not vote for either of them. I recognize there are evangelicals like Bill Keller (a real wack-job) who say that Mormons are the devil, blah, blah, blah. I realize there are probably lots of other local ministers to preach the same thing. But when it comes right down to it, how many people will actually act on it? I don’t think anybody knows.
I tend to think that it is relatively small, perhaps 5-6 percent of all evangelicals. But even that number could be huge in key states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, which a Republican has to win to become the next president. If Bush had lost 5-6 percent of the evangelical vote in Florida and Ohio, we would have President Kerry right now.
My personal opinion is that Mitt will lose the “I hate Mormons” evangelical vote and definitely lose the “I hate Mormons and all religious people” secular left and libertarian vote but will gain a lot of independent voters who don’t want to see another Clinton in the White House. This is what he did in Massachusetts, an overwhelmingly Democratic state where on paper he didn’t have a chance. He won over people with his message of competence and abilities at problem resolution. I am hoping that if he gets the Republican nomination he can do the same thing on a national stage.
Bill, regarding your #22, I think Hillary is pretty much inevitable now, even if Al Gore enters the race after winning the Nobel Peace Prize (Nobel is turning in his grave as we speak). She is polling so well nationally, and this is crucial, has such a good national organization, that Edwards and Obama don’t have a chance. Personally, I believe in “Any Prominent Republican or Libertarian But Hillary” (APRLBH), not “Anybody But Hillary.” (ABH). I think you can make an argument that Edwards and/or Obama are even worse. As for Gore, the 1999 Gore might be better than Hillary. The 2007 Gore has gone way, way off the deep end and is, sadly, even worse.
I wish we had President Kerry right now. Then we wouldn’t be contemplating a second President Clinton. Kerry would have been a weak president with an opposing Congress, and the federal government would have been paralyzed, which sounds pretty good to me.
I used to think that a Clinton nomination would be countered by the Republicans figuring they could put up any lame candidate they wanted and still win, and so they would! With a contest between Senator Clinton and an unappealing Republican, an independent candidate much more credible then Ross Perot would jump in, someone who would at least obtain electoral votes and might just become president. This crack in a century and a half of Republican/Democratic control of our government was an appealing fantasy.
However, I now think I overestimated the distaste my nation would have for the presidency switching back and forth between two families for three decades. I can’t vote for Mrs. Clinton, but in many ways she is more appealing as a president than Mr. Giuliani. Her personal life is pristine in comparison (and, yes, that matters to me), and as Mark Steyn has written, she’s the one Democrat who can buck her party’s extremists with impunity. Also, the number one rule for Giuliani cabinet appointees would be: Don’t overshadow Giuliani. If you do, you’ll be out like Police Commissioner William Bratton.
John, your sentiments are echoed in Charles Krauthammer’s column today:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZmYTBhNWEzYjRjN2M5YjA1MDQ5OTYyZjQ5NjkxYmY=
Geoff, #28
You’re correct- Edwards or Obama would be a worse president than Hillary, but Edwards is a second tier candidate at best and I’m predicting Obama’s decline quickens in the coming months. I guess I should revise my mindset to AWACBH (Anybody With A Chance But Hillary).
John M, #29
As far as you know. I’m not so certain she’s pristine- even in comparison. I just think she’s better at sweeping stuff under the rug than Rudy. Hillary may not have had a string of affairs but she stays with and supports 100% her man that has. She may have some character (as much character as an android is capable of), but she’s arm in arm with one of the biggest scoundrels in presidential history.
#24: I realize that Leavitt’s “incumbent” status would smooth the way somewhat, but I still think that even with him, there would be detractors playing the “LDS” card against Romney.
How do you know he’d nominate another Roberts? I’d be fine with that, but he could nominate another Thomas which is one more reason why I’ll vote Democrat.
And if the evangelicals had any morals they’d all vote for Huckabee instead of the better of two evils, Mitt. What does it say about these Mormon-hating evangelicals that they’ll overlook Mitt’s religion that they hate instead of supporting a candidate they agree with, even if he doesn’t have a chance.
And what exactly has Leavitt done that would make him a good candidate to continue in his position. He’s a scumbag, the fact that he was head of the EPA only reinforced how incompetent Bush is at picking people to be in charge.
Jjohnsen, can you tell me, with some examples from his decisions, why Thomas is so much worse than Roberts? Methinks that liberals who hate Thomas have no actual legal basis to do so and have decided simply to hate the man, which is a shame. But I’m open to being persuaded.
Huckabee is noticeably more populist and liberal than Mitt on many issues. There is a chance many evangelicals don’t like that about him, even if he is a minister.
I don’t know very much about Leavitt. I could go Google him, but can you provide me the reasons for your animus toward him? “Scumbag” is a pretty strong word.
Well, Geoff, thou hast given reason to hope…. Yet my faith is only as a mustard seed, but it’s there…
Personally I’m tired of Republicans trotting out the tired argument that we should vote for them “if only for the judges.” Ignore the fact that over the last 6 years the GOP has laid waste to national security (in the form of this insane war in Iraq), balanced budgets, limited government, fiscal restraint, federalism, civil liberties, the rule of law, and everything else they used to stand for — just hold your nose and vote for them because the Democrats are worse!
I say NO. We need to return to the principle that made the Republican Party great: a Constitutionally-limited federal government. (Remember, what Republicans believed in before 2001?)
I see nothing from Mitt Romney indicating that we’ll get anything different that what the Bush administration has given us — and in fact he’s talked about multiplying Bush’s sins (“double Guantanamo”?).
Fortunately, there are alternatives to the anointed Giuliani/Romney/McCain/Thompson crew.
I’d triple Guantanamo.
It would appear that Guantanamo is adequate for our needs at the moment, since little more than half of its cells remain occupied, and more than two thirds of the detainees remaining are slated for eventual release. But perhaps you would be out rounding up more terrorists (along with, as has previously been the case, many more non-terrorists) in order to satisfy your vain boasts.
Reminds me of the war council between Glendower and Hotspur in Henry IV, part 1:
G: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
H: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
Many people ended up wrongly imprisoned in Guantanamo, largely because the U.S. accepted detainees from bounty hunters, the Northern Alliance, and other private groups based only on the captors’ testimonies. The stories from those who have been released have been horrific.* And, thanks to the Republicans in the Senate, these people have no habeas corpus protection to challenge their detentions.
So when Mitt Romney talks about “doubl[ing] Guantanamo,” I cringe. Unlike some extremists, I won’t compare it to the Soviet gulags or Nazi concentration camps, but it’s certainly not America’s shining star of human and civil rights.
It puzzles me that Mormons, evangelical Christians, and other people of faith are looking to Mitt Romney to carry the banner for them, when he is advocating an increase in such an immoral and unconstitutional program.
.
* Example: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1997083
There are many, many more people out there actively killing and trying to kill American troops and everyday Iraqis than there would be cells in a tripled Guantanamo. I’d vote for a president that would fill those cells and kill the rest.
I think there are a lot of evangelicals who would agree.
Tossman,
The problem with Guantanamo is not the imprisonment of bad people (which virtually everyone supports), but the continuing imprisonment of innocent people, tortue of captives, and the refusal to apply constitutional rights to those imprisoned.
I sincerely hope you are not justifying the latter along with the former.
Mitt Romney needs to clarify his position on this.
I’ve read the torture claims and I don’t believe them. I haven’t seen a report that credibly validates these stories or that isn’t disproven a few months later.
I also don’t think these people have constitutional rights. They are not American and have never set foot on American soil.
I have read about some of the non-terrorist captives. I would offer them an official aplogy, permanent U.S. residency, and a decent job. You’re going to get a dolphin or two in the tuna nets, but that doesn’t mean you should shut down your operation.
Tossman,
It’s your right to believe who and what you want, of course. Personally, I find the the stories of released captives and resigned military and CIA personnel compelling and believable, especially in light of ongoing discoveries about the Bush administration’s cover-up of what it euphemistically calls “aggressive interrogation techniques.”
Your belief that constitutional rights only apply to U.S. citizens goes directly against D&C 98:5 — “And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.”
Your glib comment about “you’re going to get a dolphin or two” is woefully ignorant. The (pro-war) Wall Street Journal reported in 2005 that 70 percent of the detainees there may be wrongfully imprisoned.
A comment was deleted for having nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
I bet that a lot of the most irreconciliable evangelicals don’t vote. I’m betting that the ones who really believe the Mormon Church is Spanglish for SATAN aren’t very bright and, believe it or not, the Americans who don’t vote are on average the stupider and less informed ones.
Still, I think there are enough haters out there that it could make a 1% or 2% difference. This has got to be a worry if you’re the Romney campaign.
Adam, I say it may even be 5-6 percent. But I’m hopeful that if Romney gets the nomination there may be enough independent and fair-minded voters to more than make up for that.
At this point I suspect that the candidates eating their own (McCain saying nasty things about Romney, Thompson saying nasty things about Guiliani…) is a bigger risk (and it’s a shared one!) than anti-Mormonism, to the Romney campaign. It seems like the kind of people who can really spark a lot of nomination campaign support are the kind who often can’t win elections, and the kind of people who survive the nomination campaign are increasingly so damaged that they have a difficult time in the general election. So we alternate incumbent wins against very weak opponents (Dole, Kerry) and elections like we had in 2000. No-incumbent elections are supposed to be really invigorating contests — but instead everyone eats their own teammates for lunch before the game even begins, and the two nominees are nearly indistinguishable (either because half the country hates each of them, or because no one can muster a real opinion about any of it anymore).
(Yes, the last month has made me increasingly depressed about the Republican race… and the Clinton advantage seems to be completely overpowering the other Democratic contenders. Though I take comfort that least Mrs. Clinton can stand up to some of the crazy stuff in her own party and even makes Kos mad at times.)