Posted on 01/04/2008 7:39:14 PM PST by bahblahbah
Predictably enough, most media commentators have totally misinterpreted the nature of Mike Huckabee’s big win in the Iowa GOP caucuses. Conventional wisdom says that he swept to victory based on overwhelming support from Evangelicals, but conventional wisdom is flat-out wrong. According to the exit polls used by major news networks, a majority of voters who described themselves as “evangelical” or “born again” Christians actually voted against Huckabee –with 54% splitting their support among Romney, McCain, Thompson and Ron Paul. Yes, Huckabee’s 46% of Evangelicals was a strong showing, but it was directly comparable to his commanding 40% of women, or 40% of all voters under the age of 30, or 41% of those earning less than $30,000 a year. His powerful appeal to females, the young and the poor make him a different kind of Republican, who connects with voting blocs the GOP needs to win back. He’s hardly the one-dimensional religious candidate of media caricature.
It’s also idiotic and dishonest for observers to keep harping on anti-Mormon bigotry as the basis for Mitt Romney’s disappointing showing. Yeah, it's true that 81% of Evangelicals voted against Romney--- but 75% of ALL Iowa Republicans voted against him, so where is the big evidence of "anti-Mormon bigotry"? In other words, there’s only a 6% difference between his general rejection and his Evangelical rejection. There’s no evidence, in other words, that those who described themselves as “born again” or “evangelical” faced an especially tough time voting for a Mormon. Romney, after all, finished second among this group—as he finished second among the electorate in general. Among Evangelicals, Mormon Mitt beat John McCain, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul by a ratio of nearly two-to-one…a bigger, not smaller margin of victory over these other non-Mormon candidates than he managed to achieve in the electorate in general. The message ought to be obvious: the core issue was phoniness, not faith-- and the religious and non-religious alike react badly to phoniness.
Meanwhile, 87% of non-Evangelicals voted against Huckabee.... compared to only 66% of all Iowa Republicans.... in other words a 21% gap! Think about this.... THERE'S MORE EVIDENCE IN THE EXIT POLLS OF ANTI-EVANGELICAL PREJUDICE than there is of anti-Mormon prejudice. Huckabee did well across the board with all groups in the exit polls except one: the 40% who said "no" to the question, "Are you a 'born-again' or 'evangelical' Christian?" He finished fourth among this group, behind Romney, Thompson and McCain.
The evidence is pretty clear, isn't it? The preferences of Evangelicals mirrored those of Iowans in general. But the preferences of the "non Evangelical" group were distorted by their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) and led them (as the same prejudices leads angry members of the conservative establishment) to blast, resent and dismiss the Huck.
Massaging the numbers another way ---Huckabee got 46% of the Evangelical vote, only 14% of non-Evangelical--- a huge 32% difference based on the rejection by these people of a well-known religious identity.
Romney, on the other hand, got 19% of Evangelical vote, and 33% of non Evangelical voters--- a vastly less significant 14% difference...
In other words, Non-Evangelicals appear to have been much more influenced by the religious variable in their distaste for Huck, than Evangelicals were influenced by that variable in their distaste for Mitt.
Those who insist, over and over again, that the Iowa Caucuses reflected “Christian identity politics” or a “tidal wave of Evangelical support” are basing their analysis on feelings, not facts; on vapors, not voters. It’s dishonest to say that a guy who just won a crushing state-wide victory, without even winning the majority of his own religious group, displayed a one dimension appeal to Christian zealots only.
This endlessly repeated story line is not only tired, it’s a lie.
Medved’s full of it!
Just because you aren’t born again doesn’t mean you’re prejudiced against evangelicals. It just means that you’re immune to B...Sh.. put out by some power hungry Baptist pastor.
I am not supporting Huckabee but I flat out agree with Medved.
This was a CLEAR rejection of Romney as a candidate. Huckabee did a good job appealing to a lot of different groups who did not fall for Romney.
Medved is to Huckabee, as Hewitt is to Romney.
Both have invested so deeply in their candidates as to have become divorced from reality.
Look, I’ve been a serious Church Musician for 25 years. I will not vote for Huckabee; he’s a cynical manipulator. A phony.
I don’t really trust Huckabee either seems like something funny going on.... Maybe some Obama supporters feel that Huckabee in the General is a sure win for Obama so they intentionally caucused for Huckabee with no intentions of voting for him... Again I don’t know but will be more sure after New Hampshire...
Just a reminder, Medved - Rudy is a pervert.
bump
“Medved is to Huckabee, as Hewitt is to Romney.”
Let’s make that:
“Medved is to McCain and Huckabee, as Hewitt is to Romney.”
Actually, Medved today said he’s not supporting Huckabee...he would, at this point in time, support McCain.....because, against Obama or Clinton....he has gravitas that none of the other candidates have.
He's *exactly* the one-dimensional religious candidate of media "caricature". For once the media has that part right. And I say this as an evangelical myself.
The clip they keep playing of Huck playing the guitar with that band make me sick. That’s just doesn’t look like something a serious candidate for leader of the free world should be doing. It also is exactly like Clinton. They both make me ill.
Medved is a lap dog for the globalist hijackers of the republicrat party. He is no more conservative than that Amnesty liberal-McKennedy. I quit listening to his liberal crap in 2005. TUNE HIM OUT. He is a D rated movie.
Of the candidates that have a chance, Huckabee is my least favorite. If he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him, but right now I don’t see the appeal.
I’ve been saying this all along. All the name calling and allusions to Huckabee as Gomer Pyle are just bigotry against Southerners and particularly Bible-belt Christians as rubes and charletans.
Huckbee’s platform is as conservative as anyone else’s. He’s just too southern.
“Those who insist, over and over again, that the Iowa Caucuses reflected “Christian identity politics”... “
Is Medved trying to call out Rush with this statement???
Excellent analysis.
Medved is the kind of guy who speaks up for reality, when others should also be counted on, but fail.
He might be referencing Hewitt as well.
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.