A candidate who alienates a signififcant enough portion of the electorate due to
religion is a weak candidate. If that makes Evangelicals say they would not vote
for the candidate under any circumstances, you need a different candidate. In this
case there is an additional factor, previous pro-abortionism. Even weaker. If the
candidate's wife has attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers, even weaker still.
If the candidate comes across like a bland stuffed-shirt millionaire unfamiliar with
the lives and financial situation of most Americans, he's got some problems.
Doesn't matter how unfair such perceptions are, they stick.
To try to deny these factors as real weaknesses is delusional.
No candidate needs to start out with a religion problem.
No candidate needs to start out with a religion problem.Mitt's main "religion problem" is the fact that anyone who disdains his candidacy is immediately portrayed as a "religious bigot", especially here on FR. 170 years of mormons playing the "persecution card" is still evident.
I wonder if Ramesh thinks he is helping Mitt with Evangelicals with this article?