Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Huckabee: We lost in 2012 because evangelicals didn’t support a more moderate nominee
Hotair ^ | 04/02/2013 | AllahPundit

Posted on 04/02/2013 6:51:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Ed Morrisseyflagged this Politico piece earlier but I want to pay special attention to Huck's comments. Gabe Malor called BS on them on Twitter this morning. I think he's right. Huckabee's latest shot across the party establishment's bow:

“The last two presidential elections, we had more moderate candidates, so if anything a lot of conservatives went to the polls reluctantly or just didn’t go at all,” said Huckabee in a separate interview. “If all of the evangelicals had showed up, it may have made a difference.”

Huckabee, like Santorum, was a bit incredulous at the attempt to fault social conservatives when the party nominated two individuals who largely shunned talk of culture in the general election and were uncomfortable when they had to discuss issues like abortion.

“Nobody would say that these were guys that just light ’em up at the National Right to Life Convention,” cracked Huckabee.

In other words, lower social-con turnout for Romney last year proved that the party’s already on thin ice. Move any further to the center on, say, gay marriage and who knows what might happen? Just one problem: Unless I missed something, social-con turnout for Romney wasn’t lower. On the contrary, after months of liberal concern-trolling that conservative Christians might not show up on election day for a Mormon, evangelicals gave Romney the best turnout among their demographic that any modern GOP candidate has seen. Remember this exit-poll comparison published by Pew a few days after the election?

mor

Not only did Romney match Bush’s share of white evangelicals from 2004, when Dubya and Rove famously used the gay-marriage issue to mobilize social cons, he actually did ever so slightly better among evangelicals than he did with Mormons. But wait: To say that Mitt matched Bush’s share isn’t to say that the same number of evangelicals turned out for both. It could be that 20 million voted in 2004 versus only 10 million in 2012, with the GOP nominee winning 79 percent of each. Is that what happened? According to the exit polls, no. In 2004, white evangelicals made up 23 percent of an electorate composed of more than 122 million voters; last year, they made up 26 percent of an electorate consisting of more than 127 million voters. As a share of the electorate and of total voters, Romney actually improved on Bush’s performance. The only way Huck is right is if the rate of growth among the white evangelical population between 2004 and 2012 should have pointed to even greater turnout last year than what we saw. I haven’t seen any data to that effect but I’m willing to be corrected.

If Huck is right that Romney’s too moderate for social conservatives’ liking, why’d they turn out for him in such high numbers? Simple: They’re not single-issue voters. Skim through the graphs compiled by the NYT’s Thomas Edsall a few days ago. On subjects like harmful government regulations and strong defense, white evangelicals top white mainline Protestants and white Catholics. They’re conservative more or less across the board, which is what the party establishment’s counting on if the nominee has to finesse the issue of SSM with a federalism dodge three years from now. The X factor is whether Huckabee, Santorum, or some other prominent social conservative pol will turn gay marriage into a litmus test. That’s what was missing from 2012 — maybe evangelical turnout for Romney would have been lower if Huck had agitated against him by reminding voters of his pro-choice past. But he didn’t. Social conservatives were roundly unified behind Mitt in the interest of defeating O, even when they denounced him as being the lesser of two evils. The one silver lining for the GOP in potentially having to face Hillary in 2016 is that she’s sufficiently polarizing to maybe keep social conservatives in the Republican tent even if they’re unhappy with the nominee’s position on SSM. With a lesser known Democratic nominee, the impetus to unite and defeat the great liberal threat might not be as strong.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas
KEYWORDS: 2012; 2012electionanalysis; 2016election; arkansas; christianvote; christianvoters; election2016; evangelicals; huckabee; mikehuckabee; rinos; romney; romney2012; valuesvoters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-162 next last
To: Longbow1969

Missouri voters are not going to come around the idea they should vote for someone who thinks women's bodies magically seal up to prevent pregnancy in the case of legitimate rape.

That's intellectual dishonesty. Not only do you intentionally misrepresent Akin's statement in the same way Rove and his ilk do, but you bungle the physiology as well. If you can't understand why that is not helpful, "there is probably no helping you". There were three names on the Missouri ballot : McCaskill, Akin, and Dine. In the Missouri House of Representatives, Akin won re-elections from 1990 to 2000 with more then 59% in each election, generally with more than 2/3rds of the vote. He was a safe bet to defeat Obama-wannabe McCaskill right up until the GOPe stabbed him in the back. All GOP had to do was zip it, and Akin would have won. But so animous are they against a Christian Conservative that they continue to throw daggers at him even as recently as CPAC. It's disgusting and a turn-off for conservative voters, like me.


101 posted on 04/02/2013 10:54:39 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Wow, so after 150 years the shrinking number of Catholics who are white finally voted more republican than the collective category of blacks and Episcopalians, and lesbian ministers, and people of all races, and all denominations who are all placed in the category of “protestant” a category that has only gone democrat 3 times in history and for the last time in 1964.

Now how does that help America as we import millions of Catholic voters?


102 posted on 04/02/2013 10:54:44 AM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman

Sorry Huckster, as posted if you think moderates are the answer then you are a part of the problem. YOUR moderates keep getting their asses kicked up one side and down the other and three wins your kind have racked up were 1988 when it was essentially through GHWB would be a third Reagan term-not, and you squeaked by literally by the skin of your teeth GWB. Your track record SUCKS!

I predict by 2016 the GOP only gets 20% of the popular vote as most of their base has been ridiculed, talked down to and treated like dirt by you and your kind and ran out of the so-called “big tent” party. But alas liberals democrat or republican are the most intolerant bigots around. Good luck winning again with your squishy moderates.


103 posted on 04/02/2013 11:00:27 AM PDT by sarge83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: so_real
In the Missouri House of Representatives, Akin won re-elections from 1990 to 2000 with more then 59% in each election, generally with more than 2/3rds of the vote.

A safe House district is not even remotely the same thing as a statewide election. Sheila Jackson Lee has been winning her inner city Houston district overwhelmingly (over 70%+ of the vote) for well over a decade, but she could not win statewide in Texas were she to be the Dem nominee for a Senate seat.

He was a safe bet to defeat Obama-wannabe McCaskill right up until the GOPe stabbed him in the back.

Akin was the guy the Democrats spent nearly 2 million dollars to help nominate during the GOP primary. Why do you keep ignoring this? They spent this money because they knew he was the most likely to blow up his own campaign by saying something ridiculous. And sure enough he did. Yes, if Akin hadn't imploded he was a good bet to win - but he did implode.

All GOP had to do was zip it, and Akin would have won.

What Akin said was too dumb to ignore. The Democrats were waiting for a prominent Republican to slip up and utter something silly they would fit into their "war against women" meme. Akin gave them the ammo they needed.

But so animous are they against a Christian Conservative that they continue to throw daggers at him even as recently as CPAC

Nonsense. He was a bad candidate. Period. He was the worst of the 3 primary options - and it was no accident the Democrats saw the same and invested nearly 2 million bucks to make sure he got the nomination.

104 posted on 04/02/2013 11:16:00 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Nonsense. He was a bad candidate. Period. He was the worst of the 3 primary options - and it was no accident the Democrats saw the same and invested nearly 2 million bucks to make sure he got the nomination.

Akin was the only republican on the ballot. And republicans, perhaps such as yourself, simply preferred McCaskill. They act as though uppity conservatives need to "get their asses in line" (to borrow from Boehner) and tow the party line. Even today, you attack, ridicule, and misconstrue Akin's position even with the election long since done. You'd rather talk about the magic uterus meme Rove invented than simply recognize Akin was the only republican on the ballot. Sorry, but that ship has sailed. The uppity conservatives have figured out the GOPe does not have their back. McCain didn't win. Romney didn't win. The GOPe have autopsied themselves into thinking they have to be more like the democrats to win. They will pull the party in that direction. Your choice is simple ... do you join them, or not.


105 posted on 04/02/2013 11:40:48 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
you are free to listen to all the 16th and 17th century propaganda you want ~ no doubt you believe the Spanish were slaughtering indians by the millions as well.

good for you.

modern unbiased research reveals almost all the stories about everybody were not well grounded in truth. makes history harder to put together.

106 posted on 04/02/2013 11:41:30 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The evidence already posted in the thread shows this to be a lie.

Again, White Catholics are less likely to support Obama than Protestants.

If Protestants were more like Catholics, Obama would have been defeated.


107 posted on 04/02/2013 11:46:40 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

And makes it easier for crackpots to believe whatever they want despite any and all evidence! King James was not just a Nancy, he was a homosexual buried beside two of his lovers.


108 posted on 04/02/2013 11:52:35 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: so_real
The uppity conservatives have figured out the GOPe does not have their back. McCain didn't win. Romney didn't win.

Actually, in Missouri both McCain and Romney won statewide. It was Akin that failed miserably at that.

109 posted on 04/02/2013 11:54:30 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
If Protestants were more like Catholics, Obama would have been defeated.

It is amazing to see Obama voters so fiercely defended, and such a bizarre lie told.

Catholics voted for Obama, and Protestants voted against him, and you want America to vote more like Catholics, well so does the rest of the pro-abortion left, and they are counting on it.

110 posted on 04/02/2013 11:55:12 AM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
If Protestants were more like Catholics, Obama would have been defeated.

It is amazing to see Obama voters so fiercely defended, and such a bizarre lie told.

Catholics voted for Obama, and Protestants voted against him, and you want America to vote more like Catholics, well so does the rest of the pro-abortion left, and they are counting on it.

111 posted on 04/02/2013 11:55:12 AM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Then why did White Catholics vote against Obama and were more strongly against Obama than Protestants?


112 posted on 04/02/2013 11:58:28 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

While clinging to racial supremacy within the Catholic church doesn’t change the Catholic vote in America, or come close to matching the 69% of the “white” Protestant vote, or the 80 to 85% of the second largest Christian denomination in America, it does represent some change among that racial niche within the Catholics, it is a big improvement over the 52% of 2008, but it is too little too late.

Whites have been leaving the Catholic church for some time, but the remaining ones have become less democrat than they were historically and have recently started voting pro-life.

In 2012 with all the Catholic issues against Obama, the whites who still remain in the Catholic denomination reached an historical high point of voting 59% republican but that doesn’t change the fact of the catholic vote, it always has been democrat with a few exceptions, and will remain democrat.

The Catholic denomination is not a racial group, it is a single church denomination.

The mystery remains about why a democrat voting block gets such a fierce defense from you, and why supposed Catholic pro-lifers are not discouraging the importation of millions of Catholic voters when we all know that it means defeat for life, for marriage, for stopping the homosexual agenda and for conservatism in general.


113 posted on 04/02/2013 12:19:58 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“Whites have been leaving the Catholic church for some time, but the remaining ones have become less democrat than they were historically and have recently started voting pro-life.”

Evidence shows the opposite, at least in America.

The Protestants are losing people. Those who are left are less conservative. Catholics are becoming more conservative, and more conservative than their protestant brethren.


114 posted on 04/02/2013 12:39:44 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Go to that chart at the top of the page and look at how Catholics vote, and how Protestants vote.

You know that the catholic vote is a vote for democrats, you also know that that the Protestant vote is a vote against democrats, what effect do you think importing millions of more Catholics will have on the political issues that concern Christians in America?


115 posted on 04/02/2013 12:45:12 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“catholic vote is a vote for democrats”

Not so. Let me ask you a question.

Is 1/1 = 52/100?


116 posted on 04/02/2013 12:49:43 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

>> IF Akin had been a RAT, they never ever would have tossed him under the bus.

Akin was trashed here too!

I’m glad Akin stayed in if only to rub it in the face of his “conservative” antagonists.

I can’t stand the fickle #s that take up space on the Right. They’re backstabbing cowards and charlatans,


117 posted on 04/02/2013 12:56:48 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

You just aren’t playing with a full deck are you?

You think that the republicans win the Catholic vote and the democrats win the protestant vote, and you want to cling to that illusion and lie and promote it on the internet for some bizarre reason, while conservatism is overwhelmed and destroyed by the importation of more catholic voters.


118 posted on 04/02/2013 1:00:54 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The last time the Republicans won is when they won the Catholic vote. So yes, I believe Republicans need the Catholic vote in order to win.

Why? Because protestants are more liberal these days.


119 posted on 04/02/2013 1:12:09 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

So you know that Protestants already vote republican.

You know that Catholics already vote anti-republican.

You know that the democrats are importing millions of Catholic voters, and have been for years, what effect do you think that will have on the pro-life movement and our success in politics?


120 posted on 04/02/2013 1:18:29 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-162 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson