Tweet
It’s pretty clear that Mitt Romney has a Southern problem. The Republican candidate has consistently lost southern states. Indeed, it’s probable that if the South didn’t exist, then Mitt Romney would already have the nomination sown up today.
It’s also pretty probable that Romney will be the Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election. At this point, it would take an extraordinary event to deny him the nomination. It would need to be something on the lines of Romney saying that he doesn’t care about poor people.
It’s a very interesting exercise to think about how Romney’s weakness amongst southerners in the primary will affect his general election performance in the South.
The Republican Party in the South is composed of two constituencies: business Republicans and evangelical Republicans. Back when the South was solidly Democratic, wealthy white suburbanites (the business Republicans) were the first to start voting Republican. The white evangelicals came late to the party; indeed a dwindling number of them still vote Democratic. Romney is weak amongst the evangelical wing of the Republican Party in the South.
A good way to think about what this weakness means for the general election is to take a look at the 2008 Democratic primary, where Barack Obama was weak amongst several groups as well. Most famously, the president did poorly amongst white working-class voters in the Appalachians. This is a bad example to use, however, because Appalachian working-class whites have been moving against the president’s party for a while now. Southern white evangelicals, if anything, are becoming more loyal to Romney’s party.
There’s another group which Obama did very poorly with in the 2008 primary, and which is better suited to this analysis (see if you can guess what I’m talking about before finishing the next paragraph).
This group opposed Obama from the beginning to the end of the Democratic primary, despite his best efforts. People today forget this fact because group (unlike working-class Appalachians) is a strong Democratic constituency. Nevertheless, Obama’s weakness amongst this group made him lose states ranging California to Texas.
Indeed, if you look at Obama’s performance in the counties bordering Mexico in Texas, you’ll find him doing just as badly amongst Hispanics in Texas as he did amongst working-class whites in West Virginia and Kentucky.
The Hispanic vote in the 2008 Democratic Primary and the southern white evangelical vote in the 2012 Republican Primary have a lot in common. Both constituencies voted strongly against the party’s nominee during the primary, but both constituencies are still very loyal to the party during the general election.
So how did Obama’s poor performance amongst Hispanics in the 2008 primary end up affecting the general election? Well, there wasn’t much effect. Obama didn’t do great amongst Hispanics, but he didn’t do poorly. He did about average. Obama won the same percentage of the Hispanic vote that a generic Democrat winning a comfortable victory would win. He did underperform somewhat in several rural Hispanic areas.
By the same logic, Romney’s poor performance amongst southern white evangelicals in the 2012 primary won’t have much effect. Romney won’t do great amongst southern white evangelicals, but he won’t do poorly. He’ll do about average. Romney will win the same percentage of the southern white evangelical vote that a generic Republican will win. He will underperform somewhat in several rural southern areas.
There is one caveat to this analysis. Hispanic opposition to Obama was generally based on Hillary Clinton’s popularity and economic reasons. On the other hand, southern white evangelical opposition to Romney is based on personal dislike for Romney and religion. One could make a pretty strong argument that the latter two are more powerful forces than the former two.
But, all in all, Democrats shouldn’t get too excited about Romney’s Southern problem.
–inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/
22 Comments
They’ll fall in line behind Romney. They always do.
Matt Taibbi would posit three groups in the Republican tent; businessmen, evangelicals, and the KKK.
Phoenix Woman–
I agree that they will fall in line for Romney. But I believe they will do so because large numbers of evangelicals “sat out” the last presidential election. And, they believe that they helped elect President Obama by doing so.
Blue
Great diary! Recommend.
I agree with your analysis, with just a minor exception.
I presently live in a mid-Atlantic (sometimes swing) state that just went over 60% for Santorum in the Republican primary. The exit polls showed that there was a very solid turn out of “middle class and upper middle class” voters.
Just as an example, my current evangelical veterinarian actually has a sign in front of his hospital with “scripture” on it (not to mention a rather authoritarian bend to him). If he weren’t one of the top vets in the state, I’d probably move on. (Obviously, I can’t, because I would jeopardize my dogs’ health).
So, my point is that the premise that “business class conservatives” (that goes for Republicans and Democrats) and “evangelicals” as groups, are mutually exclusive, is just one of the many misconceptions put out by the main stream media.
I would probably classify the two main factions as evangelical and secular Republicans, with the libertarians, the third faction.
Anyway, I much enjoyed your diary. Thanks for posting it!
Blue
“large numbers of evangelicals “sat out” the last presidential election”
That’s the second time I’ve heard that: is there some documentation?
ironymeter–
There is, but I don’t know where I read it, since it’s been a while since those polls were released.
Most of my information comes from reading The Financial Times and the New York Times, and to a lesser degree, the Washington Post. Around election time, I do read articles and polls at the website “Real Clear Politics.”
Basically, as I remember, the drop was especially notable in comparison to the turnout for George W. Bush.
On an anecdotal level, one of the largest churches in this state adjoins a property of ours. We know that this church has engaged in GOTV efforts on some scale, for years now. After the last presidential election, about one year before the 2010 mid-term, the churches in this university town I live in went on absolute overdrive in their GOTV efforts, and the Democratic Party lost congressional seats, including my own Dem congressional representative’s, that had been held by a Democrat for over fifty years.
Again, I apologize that I don’t have the polls at my fingertips from that long ago. If you “Google” you can probably find the numbers. You might even want to try some of the evangelical websites, maybe Richard Viguerie’s website would be helpful.
Blue
“Again, I apologize that I don’t have the polls at my fingertips from that long ago”
No problem: we flag things in our mind as “verified” when presented by a sufficiently reliable source, after which they’re part of our knowledge base even if we don’t recall the source. If I have time later I’ll poke around a bit and see what I can find.
ironymeter–
After your question (which was fair,) I did a quick Google, and found several articles speculating as to whether McCain would have a difficult time turning out “values voters.” I also checked out the “Polls” section of Real Clear Politics, and found some 2008 Obama/McCain polls, but so far haven’t located one with the pertinent “intenals.”
Blue
It will be interesting to see if those so called values voters can bring themselves to vote for a Mormon. It’s not my judgement whatsoever, but I know some of those so called “Christians” who would never vote for Romney based solely on the fact he is Mormon.
tbsa–
You could be right, and I may have to “eat crow.” But I honestly believe that given the choice of another four years of an Obama administration, or casting a vote for Romney, evangelicals this time, will “walk on white hot coals” to get to the polls.
And probably not for the reason that a lot of people think–race. Yes, some are bigots, and want him out for that reason. But most evangelicals aren’t bigots, they just “despise liberals,” because their conservative ministers convince them that “liberals are socialists.”
Obviously, President Obama is about as far from a liberal as you can get, but evangelicals (in the south, anyway) have been so brainwashed, that they truly believe that President Obama is the next thing to a Communist.
And, given the choice (albeit a false one) between a business friendly Morman cultist, and a sitting President whom they believe is at least a Socialist, if not a Communist, I believe that the majority of Southern evangelicals will vote for Romney, if he becomes the Republican presidential candidate.
Blue
“they just “despise liberals,” because their conservative ministers convince them that “liberals are socialists.””
Um… Is it possible that some of that antipathy is simply Liberals reaping what they sowed? I mean, really, what sort of response do you expect from folks you refer to as “brainwashed” “so called values voters” “so called “Christians””, hearts and flowers?
“most evangelicals aren’t bigots” is about the kindest thing I’ve heard a Liberal say about Southerners in the last 30 years.
Whoa, ironymeter–
Check back–you’re attributing to me, some of tbsa’s verbiage!
I will clarify in follow-up post.
Blue
ironymeter–
#1 — tbsa used the terms “so called Christians” and so called values voters. When I used the term “values voters” it was because one of the articles I Googled about McCain and the evangelical vote, used that term, lieu of evangelicals.
#2 — Regarding my statement that “most evangelicals aren’t bigots” was meant in defense of conservative Christians, not to belittle them. I’ve had to stop listening to a lot of the liberal radio and TV talkers because they constantly slam Christians (particularly evangelicals), inferring that they’re all racist. Many evangelicals love Alan Keyes and Hermain Cain. If they’re all bigots, how can this be?
I will post this now, and continue in a second post.
Loisianna Primary results almost done: 4166 of 4267 precincts reporting
The Papist R 49.23%
Obamney R 26.50%
Paul R 6.15%
Sheldon Adelson IS 15.89%
Obamney D 75.12%
John Wolf D 12.52%
Darcy Richardson D 5.43%
http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/03242012/03242012_Statewide.html
ironymeter–
Continued:
#3 — Sorry, don’t know what you mean by “hearts and flowers.”
#4 — My use of the word “brainwashed” was only referencing the belief that President Obama is a socialist, verging on a communist. If you mistook that to mean that I consider anyone who is a Christian to be brainwashed, you completely misunderstood me.
#5 — My reference to my vet was not intended to be demeaning to him (in case you thought that). I don’t like his authoritarian demeanor, and I personally don’t think that it is appropriate to put a sign with Biblical scripture in front of a vet hospital. But, it is his business, and he has every right to do so. So, as a mature adult, I accept that and go on. (As a matter of fact, I credit him a lot that our Springer lived to almost the age of 18, and have a good doctor/client relationship with the man.) The only reason that I brought him up, was to clarify to the diarist (whose profile states that he’s a college student from California) that indeed, being an evangelical and a businessperson were not necessarily mutually exclusive. A dumb example, I suppose, but that was truly my only intent.
#6 — And, last, but not least, I am a devout Christian myself. Indeed, I am a “liberal” because my faith informs my politics.
If I’ve missed anything, please let me know. I truly appreciate your comment, since it’s given me an opportunity to clarify my intended message.
Blue
Opps! Regarding my statement: they just “despise liberals,” because their conservative ministers convince them that “liberals are socialists.”
This statement describes an ideology/theology that is taught in many “conservative” fundamentalist and/or evangelical protestant churches. I will not back down from this, one iota. It is in my backyard, literally.
The key word here is “many.” And, most “mainline protestant” churches in the South, certainly don’t teach this.
But, whether you choose to believe it or not, hateful garbage about “liberals” being socialists/communists has been espoused from some conservative pulpits in the south for more than two decades. And, tragically, I don’t think that there is any way to stop it.
Have a good one–
Blue
ironymeter–
One last thing, when conservatives rail against “liberals,” they are basically calling them atheists, or secularists. And the next logical step from this, is to call Democrats (translate, liberals) socialists (or in more extreme instances, communists).
Blue
Hi, Blue Onyx,
I think I need to clarify some, too, and we can largely blame the English language where “you” (singular) is the same as “you” (plural).
When I said “folks you refer to” the you was plural: Liberals as a group rather than any individual person. As you point out, Liberals constantly slam Christians (particularly evangelicals) so I asked why is anyone surprised they don’t like you (plural)?
When I said your comment that “‘most evangelicals aren’t bigots’ is about the kindest thing I’ve heard a Liberal say about Southerners in the last 30 years” I certainly wasn’t criticizing you. While typing it I considered putting in a “thank you” but decided that might appear condescending or snarky, so I left it out. Let me be very clear: given the constant flood of comments found right here on FDL denigrating Southerners and/or Christians it is good to find one Liberal who has the courage to say they aren’t all bigots. That really is about the kindest thing I’ve heard a Liberal say about Southerners in the last 30 years. and I appreciate it.
“hearts and flowers”? Old expression meaning approval and affection. My grey hairs are showing, huh? ;^)
I realize when you said “brainwashed” you were referring to one specific concept about Obama rather then their religious beliefs overall, but it’s still an insult, don’t you think?
I missed whatever it was you said about your vet, I’m afraid; even looking back I don’t see it.
“hateful garbage about “liberals” being socialists/communists has been espoused from some conservative pulpits in the south”
Sure it has: and hateful garbage about Southerners and/or Christians spews from the Left on a daily basis
“when conservatives rail against “liberals,” they are basically calling them atheists, or secularists”
Um… That’s a really sweeping generalization, and I definitely don’t like the implication that the core of Conservatives’ disagreements with Liberalism are religiously based.
ironymeter–
Reference your last 2 points: “hateful garbage about . . . has been espoused from some conservative pulpits in the south.” I concede that hateful garbage about Southerners and/or Christians spews from the Left on a daily basis, if you are referring to “left” radio and TV talk show hosts, etc. I mentioned that in my post. However, I do not agree that the liberal faith community has adopted and internalized malicious and irrational hatred for any group of people.
Yes, my last statement is a bit sweeping. I should have said “when religious conservatives rail against ‘liberals” . . .calling them atheists or secularists.” Obviously, “conservatives” (as in fiscal conservatives) might very well use the the term “liberal” in a different context (fiscal, etc.).
Next time, I’ll just not bother to comment . . .
(kidding!)
Blue
“I do not agree that the liberal faith community has adopted and internalized malicious and irrational hatred for any group of people.”
Ah, I get it. Not having been in a church (except for weddings and funerals) for several decades I’ll take your word for it. I actually think it’s good news that the “liberal faith community” eschews the intolerance and hatred some other parts of the Left embrace.
Yeah, you’re absolutely right. There’s a lot of evangelicism amongst high-income Southern Republicans as well.
Also, I think that it’s absolutely right to say that the labeling of Southern evangelicals as racism is very stupid. If a significant number of people in a party call you a racist, are you going to vote for said party?