Could evangelicals block Romney?
The frustrating thing about regression analysis is that it is an incredibly powerful tool that yields limited results. All it tells us is the strength of correlations. You have to draw conclusions about the causal mechanisms at work yourself.
Regardless, we see that a large portion of the GOP fight can be explained very well using only demographic variables. This is what I believe Cost picked up on when he found that northern conservatives voted for Romney, while southern conservatives voted against him. In the north, the conservatives tend to be non-evangelical. In the south, they tend to be evangelical (in Florida, they’re split).
Why this is the case is open to interpretation. The simplest answer is anti-Mormon bias, but that seems a bit too easy. After all, the alternatives are a pair of Catholics. The other possibility — and this is a problem with regression — is that religion could be a stand-in for ideology, and that, regardless of self-identification, a self-described conservative evangelical Republican is significantly to the right of a self-described conservative who is non-evangelical. Or it could be some third possibility: Perhaps evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike in heavily evangelical counties vote against Romney for an additional reason.
The other interesting observation is Romney’s decreased vote share in African-American counties. Again, this is susceptible to many interpretations.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Or maybe ROMNEY’S NOT A CONSERVATIVE.
Living4Him5534 on February 6, 2012 at 7:44 PM
It couldn’t possibly be Romney’s record on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, cap & trade, Romneycare, illegal immigration, Bain & his economic gaffes. Nope, it’s because they’re anti-Mormon. OH NOSE!!111!!1!!1!!
At least the article is kind enough to grant this:
Well, duh.
Stoic Patriot on February 6, 2012 at 7:48 PM
Not every state is Robert Jeffress territory. Thankfully.
hanzblinx on February 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM
who exactly is Romneys base?
seems to me no one likes him yet he is still winning? Does it mean the Republican party is becoming democrat-lite?
liberal4life on February 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM
If need be and if he maintains some semblance of Conservatism.
Oh, you mean because he’s a Mormon again. Okay, ha ha funny. Let’s once again opine about backerds Bible-Thumpers not seemingly smart enough to think for ourselves and biased against another Christian Sect.
Let’s ask if any Atheists will support a devout Evangelical.
hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 7:53 PM
Romney will fail on his own merits. No reason to give him an excuse to hide behind.
portlandon on February 6, 2012 at 7:54 PM
Romney is winning the majority of self-described conservatives and members of the tea party. Romney is breaking through because the voters are smart enough to know they have to beat Obama and Mitt is the only one who can.
Mitt is smarter than hell.
He has no skeletons in the closet.
He gets the chick vote cause is one good looking guy (I say that in a non-gay way).
He is a turn-around artist.
He wont embarrass us by nominating a half-wit for VP like Palin.
He will win.
He will fix the country.
He will kick arse.
Jailbreak on February 6, 2012 at 7:54 PM
You know you’re wasting your time, right? You know no one believes you’re a Christian, right? And you do know that everyone is taking great pains to not even address you comments …
Right?
I’m only taking the time to address this one comment because you work so hard at it and I feel so pathetically bad for you.
hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 7:56 PM
Now you are starting to get it
neuquenguy on February 6, 2012 at 7:58 PM
the voters are smart enough to know they have to beat Obama and Mitt is the only one who can.
Heh. Last we heard from Rasmussen it was
Obama 51
Willard 45
and
Santorum 45
Obama 44.
Santorum is of Italian descent, and as the Italians say, Jailbreak–shuddup you mouth!
Emperor Norton on February 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM
I’m going to respond to your silliness one line at a time. Try to keep up.
I’ve heard Hell is pretty smart.
Except for Bain, which the Democrats will demagogue big time. And his flip flops.
To say that Women will vote for the good looking candidate is overly simplistic.
One man’s Turn-around artist is another man’s Professional Job Cutter.
You can’t say that as long as Michele Bachmann is a possible candidate.
Just like he did in MA, when he waved the white flag of surrender in 2006 instead of face the voters?
Just like he did in MA?
Unless Democrats are in the majority, which might be the case after 2014, in which case he’s likely to bend over for them like he did in MA.
vegconservative on February 6, 2012 at 8:05 PM
No, but conservatives may.
J.E. Dyer on February 6, 2012 at 8:05 PM
“Could evangelicals block Romney”
Sure, if their goal is to re-elect Obama.
crosspatch on February 6, 2012 at 8:06 PM
@J.E. Dyer
Why would “conservatives” want to re-elect Obama?
crosspatch on February 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM
“self-described” is the key word. This ad, which by the way I heard on the radio also says a lot about the “conservative” Romney. Besides what you’ve already listed. Let him run, but you can’t morph Romney into a Conservative no matter how you try. He never would have been elected in a blue State like MA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfaobFHqT1I&context=C30c20aeADOEgsToPDskJo3VFIXa2-BERguMpxJWnF
bluefox on February 6, 2012 at 8:12 PM
If a black man and a Mormon make the ballot this year, I can hear the collective pop of heads exploding in the South.
hot-heir on February 6, 2012 at 8:12 PM
*Sigh*
Please stop saying that Romney is the only one who could beat Obama when he is polling behind him while Obama hits 50%, and Santorum is leading him and Obama can’t get past 44%.
vegconservative on February 6, 2012 at 8:12 PM
Evangelicals are Conservatives.
hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 8:17 PM
What a bigoted remark. No sheets comments?
hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM
Very broad brushy of you. Yankee.
carbon_footprint on February 6, 2012 at 8:21 PM
Jailbreak, Jailbreak. You call Sarah a half-wit, but Romney is smart.
Now you know that as long as HA is online, you don’t get by with that.
You did have one thing right tho since you said: He is a turn-around artist. AKA a Flip Flopper.
Oh, why don’t you compare Sarah’s record with Romney’s. You’ll find a lot of Quality with what she accomplished and it was all for the good of the People. Her record was Conservative and Romney’s was Liberal.
bluefox on February 6, 2012 at 8:23 PM
But most of them don’t reject Romney because he’s a Mooooor-monnnnnn, they reject him because he’s not a conservative.
It is essential to make that distinction.
J.E. Dyer on February 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM
So many to work on, LOL
bluefox on February 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM
I understand.
hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 8:32 PM
I agree. It’s not his religion, it’s how he has governed. I also detect a certain “pretend” about him. He’s not being himself and I think his handlers are coaching him to be aggressive. But it’s not natural I don’t think. Now, Newt..I don’t think anyone is coaching him and that’s an extreme in the opposite direction:-)
bluefox on February 6, 2012 at 8:33 PM
Live by the brush, die by the brush.
hot-heir on February 6, 2012 at 8:35 PM
How about the option that many who are considered conservative in the North would be the equivalent of liberal Democrats in the South?
But, no, it’s easier to go with the bigot meme.
INC on February 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM
It would be a choice between being called a religous bigot or a racist, apparently. What does the south have to do with it?
Night Owl on February 6, 2012 at 8:39 PM
Oh my God! It proved it’s point with an bast@rdized parable! We’re all doomed to bigotry and backwardness-ness./
No, seriously, kiss my damn-yankee 4th point of contact, bigot.
hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
hot-heir on February 6, 2012 at 8:57 PM
Oh, you can judge all that from a distant without even knowing what my families ethnic makeup is?
Wow, keep it rolling. Fill me in on me.
hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 9:07 PM
How about manning up and saying that there are people who will not vote for a Mormon or a black, regardless, and the majority of those, not all of them, live in the South. Own it. Stop with the anti-Mormon whisper campaigns, sermons and back door “emergency” meetings with evangelical leaders to stop the scary Mormon.
I want someone who shares my values and can get our fiscal house in order. If it ends up being a Mormon, I’m ok with that.
hot-heir on February 6, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Me too. I’m a Southern Baptist.
What?
hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 9:25 PM
Do you mind if we finish the primary first though?
hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 9:31 PM
What the heck. Good gravy…
SparkPlug on February 6, 2012 at 9:39 PM
Just curious, but Romney is expected to do well in states with high Mormon populations, so would you say they are bigots too? There are black people who vote for Obama simply because he’s black. You are just looking for an excuse, just like Obama.
Night Owl on February 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM
This is what I’ve been saying. How’s come it’s Ok for the blacks & Mormons to vote for their candidates, but the minute a non-black or non-Mormon says he won’t vote for Mitt/Obamao, we’re racist, bigoted anti-Mormons?
8 weight on February 6, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Harry Reid would not do well among Mormons. A man like Romney who has protested against gay marriage will do well though.
Mormontheman on February 6, 2012 at 9:52 PM