No, this is not a joke, this is a new web site that looks, well, pretty darned good. Here are some excerpts:
Well, we have spoken to literally hundreds of southern evangelicals about Governor Romney, including folks from some of the most fundamentalist churches in the South. As we’ve said before (and will no doubt say again and again), in all those conversations only one person refused to support the Governor because of his religion. (One of the more amusing responses to the “Mormon question” came from an elderly woman from a small town in West Tennessee. After we brought up his religion, she responded: “Well, at least he ain’t Catholic.”) While I do not argue that our experience represents a scientifically chosen, statistically significant sample, I will assert that it is a better representation of evangelical behavior than theories about that behavior based on theological/political assumptions.
and how about this:
In my post below, I describe the “gaping holes” in the polling data that purports to demonstrate that 37% of Americans would not vote for a Mormon for president. As is often the case, the media is following the splashy initial headlines with follow-up stories that provide additional details.
Well, it turns out that one of my predictions below was dead-on. The political group most likely to reject a Mormon candidate is liberal Democrats (50% say they could not support a Mormon candidate). Yet there is also a high percentage of Republicans (including frequent church attenders) who indicate that they could not support a Mormon. I believe, however, there is an important distinction between these two groups.
First, the liberal Democrats. Their opposition is almost certainly policy based, not necessarily religion-based. They also indicate a high level of opposition to evangelical Christians. To the liberal Democrat, “Mormon” or “evangelical Christian” are code words for a person who is pro-life, opposed to same-sex marriage, and (more than likely) supportive of the war in Iraq. As a result, they become the enemy…one of those fundamentalist, bigoted inhabitants of red-state “Jesusland.”
The opposition of the second group, conservative Republicans (including conservative Christians), is not policy based. It cannot be. In fact, there is virtually no daylight between evangelical and Mormon positions on the major social issues. Consequently, I read the poll (as applied to conservative Christians) as a kind of “all other things being equal” religious preference list and is therefore of virtually no importance.
Why? Well, all other things are never equal. In fact, if you look at the recent historical record, evangelicals have rejected the “most Christian” candidates (just ask Pat Robertson, Alan Keyes, and Gary Bauer) in favor of candidates who are (1) socially conservative; and (2) electable. Moreover, evangelicals have pursued this strategy in spite of the fact that some of their favorite candidates have had flaws that “all other things being equal” would have disqualified them from contention.
Imagine a poll that asks the following: Rank in order the candidates that you would favor in the upcoming presidential race:
A devout Southern Baptist
A former substance abuser
A former seminary student
A divorced movie actor
In response to that poll question, the typical evangelical would probably rank the Southern Baptist first, the seminary student second, and there would be a real question as to whether a divorced actor ranked above or below a former substance abuser. Yet we all know that evangelical support was decisive in divorced actor Ronald Reagan’s victory over Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter and was also decisive in former drunk George Bush’s victory over seminary student Al Gore.
Evangelicals vote for people, not religious categories. Ignore the L.A. Times poll and focus on what happens after religious voters are introduced to the character, policies, and charisma of the competing candidates.
I happen to find these arguments convincing, and I predict everybody will be surprised by how many “intolerant” and “bigoted” evangelicals end up supporting Mitt. Nobody will be surprised, however, by how many liberal Democrats end up opposing him (yes, yes for policy reasons, but there will be some bigotry there also).
Looks like a pretty good website. I like how it says that the left is mistaking evangelicals for ignorant uneducated people who can’t make sophisticated political choices. Maybe I lack faith to some degree, but I’m taking a “I’ll believe it when I see it” stance on that topic.
I found the following from the Evangelicals for Mitt page explaining the site’s opinion on Mitt’s Mormonism. I really do think this will become the majority position among evangelicals in the run-up to the 2008 election:
” I like how it says that the left is mistaking evangelicals for ignorant uneducated people who can’t make sophisticated political choices. Maybe I lack faith to some degree, but I’m taking a “I’ll believe it when I see it” stance on that topic.”
You’re already seeing it, Danithew, in places like this website. Maybe what you mean is that you want all Evangelicals to prove something, but I think its a mistake to treat Evangelicals as a monolithic group.
I know all evangelicals won’t think alike and that many are good people. I’m simply wondering (with a bit of cynicism) what percentage of evangelicals would refuse to vote for a Mormon solely due to his/her Mormon-ness.
I should say that I once read a Billy Graham biography and paid special attention to anything it might have to say about his views on Mormons. It said basically nothing about his views on the subject. I think it did mention that he was good friends with some of the Marriotts. I thought that might be a positive indicator.
The summer that evangelicals flocked to Salt Lake City to preach to the Mormons, I remember hearing that Jimmy Carter criticized the effort, saying that if Mormons say they accept Christ, that should be sufficient.
So I don’t mean to imply that I think evangelicals are altogether prejudiced against Mormons.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–:
Mitt and his supporters are dreaming in technicolor if he (they) think he has a chance at the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency. Post-New Hampshire, he will be crushed.
Topz … crushed by who?
While this is great, who would win between:
McCain vs. Romney
Guiliani vs. Romney
Brownback vs. Romney
Frist vs. Romney
It’s great to say that Romney isn’t as unelectable as the MSM have claimed, but you still have to pit him against specific candidates (I think he would beat Brownback and Frist, but I don’t think he defeats McCain or Guiliani).
I think Romney’s chances are as good as anybody in the race right now. McCain and Giuliani are very strong candidates, but both have big flaws that Romney doesn’t. His mormonism is probably only marginal against them. Brownback and Frist are pretty weak candidates.
He can beat all of them. He can be beat by McCain or Giuliani, but when it comes head to head I don’t think he’d lose to Frist or Brownback (though Brownback may develop into a stronger presence as time goes on).
Re #5-6:
Ditto on the names queuno mentions.
McCain could crush Romney. Guiliani could crush Romney. Frist could probably even beat him if the other two didn’t run. But if neither of McCain and Guiliani run (highly unlikely), there would be no shortage of other takers who could probably beat Frist and Romney. Romney’s running at about 4% in polls of registered GOP voters. Those aren’t winning numbers.
As for the presidency, who could beat Romney, if by some impossible fluke Romney was the GOP nominee. Well, the two most likely Dems to be nominated–Clinton or Gore–either could both clean his clock in a head to head election without too much trouble. Romney just doesn’t have the killer instinct that pols need in the federal political environment to thrive.
You’re right Geoff,
That is a pretty good website.
I agree that McCain and Giuliani would handily beat Romney in 2006. Good thing the election is in 2008. A lot will happen between now and primary season. I think Mitt has as good a chance as anyone whose name is being mentioned these days. The site linked above says what I’ve thought all along; that the Mormon thing won’t make or break a thing. If Romney can connect with those who vote in the primaries, and they like what they hear (especially if they don’t hear the same thing from his opponents), I believe he very well could be the guy. I’m not predicting he will be, but at this point nobody has a lock.
As for whether he can beat whomever the Democrat candidate is, so long as guys like Dean, Kerry, and Moore are thought of as respected voices of the left, anyone they nominate can be beaten…
Topz or Bottomz?
This is in rebuttle to Topz’s argument that Romney has “no chance” because he’s “polling” so poorly.
Let me guess Topz, you live in Utah or somewhere where everyone’s heard of Romney. I talk about him a lot to very educated people here in Iowa and about 5-10% have EVER heard of the guy. Even most Mormons I speak with don’t have any idea that he might be running for POTUS.
Romney supporters (or potential Romney supporters) should not be discouraged by all of the “early polls” (like this compilation of polls over the last year or so) about the 2008 presidential race. At this point . . . people called by a polling service about a potential race over 2 years away are not likely to take it seriously and would probably say anything to get off the phone quicker. More importantly, at this point these phone polls are all about name recognition. That’s why McCain, Giuliani, and Rice seem to do the best . . . because they are well known names that have been highlighted on the national stage. However, political pundints see it a little differently as the following links (here, here, here, and here) all show that Romney is in the top teir of possible republican nominees.
Those “cold call” polls are all about one thing . . . name recognition. Remember who was leading the Democrats in the presidential polls for 2004 2+ years before? His name was Joe Lieberman and he barely made it out of Iowa!
However, where Romney’s name is better know he is polling better:
Here’s something I posted on the matter at my blogsite “Iowans for Romney” about a month ago:
This first ABC News poll (props to Jason at Illinoisians for Mitt for finding this one) confirms what most of us know already . . . and that’s that it is way too early for anyone to be a “lock” as a frontrunner. Only 9% of voters polled at this point “would definitely vote for McCain” . . . less than half of those that are already sold on Hillary (19%). Broken down to just the Republicans and he’s still only got 11% “sealed-uup” at this point. What is even more encouraging for Mr. Romney (both in the primary and in the general election) is that 28% of those polled would definitely not vote for McCain and 42% for Hillary. This confirms the polarizing nature of Hillary amogst voters since nearly two-thirds (61%) of voters have already made up their minds on Hillary. The Republican field seems to be wide open!
The last interesting poll summarized and linked at a Giuliani blog site is another of the “cold-call” phone survey types (which means that they’re all about name recognition . . . since most people don’t care this early in the game and are apt to agree to the first name that they recognize that doesn’t completely repulse them just to get off the phone and back to dinner. I mean who hasn’t heard of McCain, Giuliani, or Newt? No surprise that they’re leading).
Governor Romney has never been a “frontrunner” in these kinds of polls (see this link for lots of them over the last several months) because of his poor name recognition. However, it is interesting that where his name is better known (i.e. Michigan . . . where at least the older crowd remember his fathers leadership), he is definitely on the map at 15%. Look for these numbers to go up once he formally announces his candidacy and is seen/recognized in the public eye as a serious contender.
One other thing to consider is that George Allen seems to have almost NO support outside of the south . . . 3% in Michigan and 1% in Washington State? That’s not going to get him very far in the GOP primaries . . . but again, that might be mostly name recognition as well . . . but 1% . . .)
Giulani has been successful as a New York Republican, but some of his conservative values are seriously in question. I am guessing that if conservatives get to know Romney, they would prefer him to Giulani in a heartbeat.
I’m less sure about McCain. My impression of McCain is that he is not quite a mainstream Republican or conservative either. While I think he might place well in the primaries I’m not sure he’s the kind of person who would get the majority of backers.
Romney’s only real issue (and it may be significant … we’ll have to see) is his Mormonism. If that were taken away, it’s hard for me to see how other candidates would beat him in the long-run. He really seems to be quite ideal for the Republican candidacy in his views, pragmatism, leadership capabilities and charisma. But we’ll see …
No, I don’t live in Utah. God forbid. I split my time between Salem, New Hampshire and Norman, Oklahoma. I think he may do well here (NH), but I still maintain that he won’t have much of a chance after that.
You can argue about it all you like and it is fairly bizarre to be discussing polls right now–but we’ll see in 2008 who’s left standing. I would bet a lot of money that it won’t be Romney for the GOP.
Gov. Romney needs to step up and make it clear that he believes Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God who died for the sins of the world and the the Bible is the Word of God, that He does not believe that Christ and Satan were in eternity past brothers. If he wants my support, I need to hear this. What he believes in his heart will shape his leadership.
Don, you may want to read Article VI of the Constitution.
Jeff Fuller is smart. And he’s everywhere. A coupla times now I’ve read a comment and think, “This person knows what’s going on” and it’s Mr. Fuller. TOPZ, on the other hand, is attempting furiously to project his own wishes into reality. Romney is out there, like a soldier, everyday laying the groundwork as he steadily grows in popularity. . .it is inevitable that he will prevail as the Republican candidate, and finally as POTUS. With his skills, knowledge, and work ethic, any other result would defy the laws of nature. Now honestly, I don’t know this for a fact any more than TOPZ knows his phony science, but I can see Romney getting the GOP nomination, tapping Arnold Schwarzie as the VP, and with that star power and moral/physical show of strength, they would be untouchable. Shoot, Schwarzie could use a little religion as a side benefit. What, maybe two weeks ago I wouldn’t have said this. But now lotsa folks can see it coming.