[Antoninus]

Something has to account for why he was able to do much better in some parts of the country than others, and I’m afraid that religion looks like the logical explanation.

Do you really think a northeastern liberal yankee Catholic would have done any better with Southern Republicans than Romney did? If yes, I present to you Rudy Giuliani and his ridiculous candidacy.

[MBB1984]

I am Southern Republican and Baptist so I think I can answer your question. In the South, Baptists are by far the predominant denomination.

There is a considerable difference between Catholics and Mormons to Baptists and Guiliani did not have nearly the religious problem that Romney had.

In general, Baptists consider Catholics to be seriously misguided, but still part of Christianity. In general, Baptists consider Mormons to be part of a cult.

Guiliani would have likely carried South Carolina except for: (1) issues pertaining to his sordid affair and (2) possibly the rise of Huckabee.

[freespirited]

Do you really think a northeastern liberal yankee Catholic would have done any better with Southern Republicans than Romney did? If yes, I present to you Rudy Giuliani and his ridiculous candidacy.

Your example has three variables: northeastern, liberal, and Catholic. I am not sure northeastern is that big a deal. Catholic would probably be a small factor. But the big problem factor in the example is liberalism, not religion.

Just MHO.