Request: Mormons and 2008

Another one from yesterday's requests thread: "Implications of the Mormon grassroots mobilization if Romney gets picked to be McCain's VP. I say it makes Nevada and Colorado tougher for the Democrats to pick up, and Michigan also, though not so much for the LDS factor."

I think that's right. There's also the potential that Mormon mobilization could put Oregon back in play. You saw from the McCain-Clinton matchup polling that McCain's not per se unacceptable to Oregon and the state has a much larger Mormon population than people realize. On the other hand, given the fact that evangelicals are already less-than-ecstatic about McCain, adding Romney make that problem even worse and hurt McCain in Ohio, Virginia, and elsewhere that the GOP counts on mobilizing these voters. More generally, Romney seems to be a figure who most Americans find despicable, which makes him a problematic VP choice.

Comments

There's also the potential that Mormon mobilization could put Oregon back in play. You saw from the McCain-Clinton matchup polling that McCain's not per se unacceptable to Oregon and the state has a much larger Mormon population than people realize.

I'm not from Oregon but I'd guess that the Mormon is pretty concentrated along the Idaho border, since Idaho has a fairly large Mormom community if I recall correctly. (I grew up in a really Mormom CA town and recall that a number of my Mormon friends had ties to Idaho).

If this is true, then these are voters who are likely already very inclined toward the GOP, as Idaho (as well as eastern OR and WA) are extremely conservative regions.

Perhaps adding Romney would make a difference but it would be more of an enthusiasm/GOTV impact rather than shifting a D vote to an R.

Posted by BFR | June 12, 2008 12:37 PM

I seem to recall that McCain and Romney were pretty antagonistic with one another during the primaries, but of course McCain was able to forgive Bush for smearing him in 2000.

Posted by sfgary | June 12, 2008 12:40 PM

Mormons are dutiful, meaning they already vote, and do so for the GOP in pratical lockstep. I doubt having Romney on the ticket would significantly increase Mormon turnout or voting for the GOP.

Posted by Traven | June 12, 2008 12:43 PM

"I say it makes Nevada and Colorado tougher for the Democrats to pick up"

I wouldn't overestimate the Mormon presence in Colorado. It's like 2% of the total population -- comparable to Muslims or Jews. And these people already (1) were voting Republican and (2) were turning out in large numbers.

Interestingly, it's true that Mormons make up a fairly large minority group west of the Rockies, but that's a really small subset of the population. The total state 2007 estimated population is 4.8M, and the Colorado portion of the Front Range alone is 4.1M. Notably, that excludes the population of eastern Colorado. Estimating that at about 200,000, that means that western Colorado has maybe 12% of the state's population.

(Colorado really is an interesting state. It's Kansas in the eastern third, Utah in the western third, and California in the middle.)

Posted by Joe | June 12, 2008 12:51 PM

>Romney seems to be a figure who most
>Americans find despicable

Is there any real evidence this is true? Polls?

Posted by Charlie | June 12, 2008 12:51 PM

I have been wondering the same thing. I was surprised at the lack of in-depth reporting about Mormonism during the Republican primaries. Whether it was a case of 'the press' believing Romney not to be a legitimate candidate or waiting for a later time or tighter race, I don't know. However, the potential for Mormom mobilization is there (don't forget pockets of Missouri and Illinois as well); however, once true in-depth examination and analysis of not only the Mormom faith (HISTORY, doctrine, theology, etc) but also Romney's own place in the church is undertaken, I feel that Evangelicals will refuse to vote for a ticket with his name on it. Those Evangelicals who voted for him in the primaries because they saw him as a Christian who spoke of God and shared their same stances on social issues will not vote for him on a ticket when they begin to see how different Mormon beliefs and doctrine are to Protestant Evangelical beliefs.

Posted by SJB | June 12, 2008 12:54 PM

There aren't actually that many Mormons in Oregon, and most of them are already republican. Romney on the ticket might work in favor of Gordon Smith simply by injecting some enthusiasm.

Bush's action yesterday in trying to zero out or greatly reduce the disaster assistance to the salmon fleet is likely to have far more impact on the election than the VP pick since fishing (commercial and sport) tends to be concentrated among groups that can go either way in an election.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 12, 2008 12:55 PM

Romney seems to be a figure who most Americans find despicable

Is there any real evidence this is true? Polls?

Matt is an American and finds Romney despicable. I am an American, and find him despicable, ergo Americans (plural) find him despicable.

Posted by drjimcooper | June 12, 2008 12:59 PM

Did you actually look at any like ummm data before you posted this? Apparently not.

"Matt is a smart guy but I think he's under the impression that Colorado has some sort of very large Mormon population given that we are neighbors with the state of Utah. In fact Colorado has about 126,000 Mormons in the entire state. That puts us at 9th in the nation in terms of raw numbers. As a percentage of our population Mormons make up about 2.6% of the total population. That's a very small percentage, well behind the state with the 10th highest percentage of Mormons - Washington state at 3.9%. And remember these are the total number of Mormons living in the state, not the total number of Mormon voters. That number will be even smaller.

In short, no Matt - Mormons will not swing Colorado for McCain if Romney is placed on the ballot."

Posted by Steve Balboni | June 12, 2008 1:00 PM

Bush's action yesterday in trying to zero out or greatly reduce the disaster assistance to the salmon fleet is likely to have far more impact on the election than the VP pick since fishing (commercial and sport) tends to be concentrated among groups that can go either way in an election

I'd agree with this - the salmon issue is going to kill the GOP in the coastal areas this year.

Posted by BFR | June 12, 2008 1:01 PM

The counterargument (I'm not sure if I believe it or not) is that McCain is unacceptable to "real" conservatives and that those voters are going to stay home in droves, but that adding Romney to the ticket will serve as a show of good faith and bring them back to the fold.

Posted by Galen | June 12, 2008 1:01 PM

As someone who lives in the so-called California third of Colorado, I'd like to point out that Mark Udall, the likely winner of the Senate race in Colorado, and a Democrat, comes from a family of Mormons very popular in the region (though the always reliable Wikipedia claims he is not himself Mormon). That may mitigate whatever effect Romney would have in Colorado.

Posted by Erik | June 12, 2008 1:02 PM

I think Romney would make an excellent choice for McCain. McCain is great on Foreign Policy but doesn't know jack about the economy and Romney is great with the economy. Most americans find him despicable. please, what a joke!

Posted by steve | June 12, 2008 1:06 PM

So basically what that person in the request thread is saying is that the mormon vote wouldn't push McCain/Romney over the edge in those states, but the high-powered grassroots mobilization of Mormons canvassing for McCain/Romney among non-mormons would help a lot.

This makes a lot of sense. Mormons would canvass far more energetically with a Mormon on the ticket, but left unsaid in this idea (and maybe un-thought) is that Mormons are above average in civic-mindedness and organizational capability.

Posted by scottynx | June 12, 2008 1:09 PM

Whether or not most Americans dislike Romney (I do, but then I'm a Democrat) is totally irrelevant. Whether or not McCain dislikes him personally is also irrelevant; as someone else has already said, McCain doesn't like Bush (for good reasons) but has still literally and metaphorically embraced him for perceived political gain. The only thing that matters in a presidential election is the Electoral College. If McCain's number-crunchers decide that Romney would help more than hurt him in some crucial swing states, that will be a powerful argument for putting him on the ticket.

Posted by beckya57 | June 12, 2008 1:12 PM

"Did you actually look at any like ummm data before you posted this? Apparently not."

Post of the month. Matt doesn't look at any data about anything. Unless the data is in the blog post he read, or his post is about basketball.

Posted by James | June 12, 2008 1:16 PM

The counterargument (I'm not sure if I believe it or not) is that McCain is unacceptable to "real" conservatives and that those voters are going to stay home in droves, but that adding Romney to the ticket will serve as a show of good faith and bring them back to the fold.

Romney, like Giuliani, is one of those people you like less and less the more you see them. I did exit poll demographics analysis of a couple of counties in Western MA on Super Duper Tuesday. One thing I found striking is how moderate Republican men tended to like Mittens, while conservative Republican men hate Mitt Romney. Passionately. I'm talking the kind of hate usually reserved for traffic, Brussels sprouts, head colds, and spam.

Mitt's appeal to the wingnut wing was a fleeting affair attributable in large part to a field of weak candidates and some timely pandering.

Posted by Roboticghost | June 12, 2008 1:19 PM

The idea that Romney on the ticket will be an electoral boost to McCain is rather laughable, in my view.

Posted by Chris O. | June 12, 2008 1:22 PM

I can't imagine Mormons having that big of an impact on Colorado. Nevada possibly because Romney trounced McCain in Nevada (heck, McCain lost to Ron Paul in Nevada!). While I don't think AZ is in play, I think Obama will be able to keep it close, say under 7 or 10, which might make McCain sweat. Romney on the ticket and AZ turns into a blowout.

Posted by tom.a | June 12, 2008 1:24 PM

I just want to point out that Mormons in the Pacific Northwest may not be as monolithic as you think. I'm one of them (up in Seattle), and I voted for Obama. Most of my LDS friends up here are a lot further left than you might assume.

Posted by Miles | June 12, 2008 1:27 PM

Plus, the LDS Church has an offical policy (read to each congregation before every election) of encouraging their members to vote, but explicitly refraining from endorsing any candidate. Plus, the statement clearly bans any member from using church buildings, membership lists or any other materials for the political purposes.

So, while Romney might get a big Mormon turnout, I don't see a grassroots movement where Mormons go out and convince their neighbors (and even if there was such a movement, it obviously didn't work in the primaries).

Posted by Ben | June 12, 2008 2:33 PM

I think McCain will pick Huckabee.

First, he's a governor, and can be presented as somebody who's not a Washington insider. Which also means that Huckabee's ties to Bush aren't as obvious as those of some other GOP Senator.

He's a southerner, which will help counter Obama's tremendous strength with black voters in the south.

He'll help some with the evangelical base, but since Huck has somewhat "populist" ideas on economics, he will appeal to some Hillary voters in PA and WVA and the like, too.

His battles with his weight will give him a means of relating to our increasingly obese electorate.

Out of all the candidates I saw in either party, Huck was by far the most naturally and comfortably glib in front of a camera or microphone. He has a genuine sense of humor, whereas McCain's is creepy and forced. He doesn't seem to take himself as seriously as others do. He's relaxed where McCain is stiff. He "appears" to be genuine, whereas Romney is transparently, obviously, and completely fake.

The fact that he made an incredibly ill-advised attempt at joking about someone trying to shoot Obama will be seen as a positive by the McCainiacs. And as a final plus, he hasn't taken part in any exorcisms that we know of, either.

We may shudder at the thought of Huckabee being a heartbeat away from the nuclear trigger, but from a purely political standpoint McCain could do far worse. Remember George Allen or Bill Frist?

Posted by bluestatedon | June 12, 2008 2:38 PM

"I can't imagine Mormons having that big of an impact on Colorado."

OTOH, I can EASILY imagine having a Mormon on the ticket having a big impact on Dixie - a negative one. I grew up and attended Southern Baptist churches in Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina and Florida and the overwhelming majority of my (former) fellow Baptists consider Mormons to be deluded by Satan AT BEST.

So please, please, let lying traitor John McCain pick Romney for his VP.

Posted by John | June 12, 2008 2:40 PM

Here are the states Mormons could possibly help McCain nab:

1) Utah
2) Idaho
3) Arizona

You did notice that McCain could run without a VP and win those states, right?

As for Mormons elsewhere, Miles said it -- Washington Mormons (my wife) are kinda lefty, California Mormons (moi) are kinda centrist, and Nevada Mormons (like Harry Reid and my brother) are kinda conservative populists.

What would much more interesting to watch is a Mormon on the Dem side. There aren't any that I can think of who are prominent enough to be VP, and s/he probably wouldn't flip Utah or Idaho. But s/he could make a 2-5% difference in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and even Arizona. In a close election, that could be all the difference.

Posted by c cobb | June 12, 2008 2:44 PM

As you point out, Matt, Clinton puts Oregon in play for McCain, but Clinton isn't the candidate, Obama is. He's the guy who got more than 75,000 people to show up at a rally here. McCain cannot compete in this state.

And if you look at the polling, at this rate, McCain's going to have to spend all of his time and money to hold Utah, Idaho and Alabama. He's not going to be able to make inroads into any Obama states no matter who he puts on the ticket. But as he would say, "that's not too important."

Posted by kidkostar | June 12, 2008 2:47 PM

Why people think Mitt Romney would help the McCain campaign here in Michigan, I don't know. It has been almost 40 years since his dad was governor here--you have to be a political junkie to remember him. And, let's face it, Mitt ain't his dad. Mitt's mom got clobbered when she ran for the senate here back in '70, too.

Posted by rea | June 12, 2008 2:50 PM

I think McCain asks Romney to be his running mate only if it looks like he's gonna lose in a landslide. Then he asks Mitt to commit something like $20 million to the campaign as a condition of his being picked.

If the money means McCain can pull a come-from-behind victory, then he's happy. But if the donation only means McCain has helped impoverish (slightly) a man he genuinely dislikes, then at least the campaign will have accomplished that.

Posted by jlw | June 12, 2008 3:01 PM

Thanks, Balboni, for providing some much-needed perspective on Colorado. When I saw Matt's assertion that Romney would make CO harder for Obama to win, I thought 'Huh?' Granted, McCain did horrible in the caucuses here while Romney rolled, but that's not because Romney would in any way be a political force in the state.

The question for CO was always whether Clinton or Obama would be the Dem nom. With Clinton, any Repub wins. With Obama, any Repub loses.

Side note: Marilyn Musgrave (blech) is my representative. The only reason she wins is because our district includes the city of Fort Collins and almost all of eastern Colorado, with its aforementioned population of 200,000 or so. And even then, she only wins squeakers. This year, with Obama on the ticket and a good Dem challenger, CO-04 just may turn Dem, and we finally get to send that Bush-cuddler back to Fort Morgan.

Posted by Bob Loblaw | June 12, 2008 3:11 PM

"It has been almost 40 years since his dad was governor here--you have to be a political junkie to remember him."

You'd also have to be old. I'm a lifelong Michigander, and concur with rea's assessment. George Romney was considered at the time to be a moderate Republican, and he's generally held in high regard in the memories of those old enough to be of voting age when he was around. At one point in the 1968 GOP primary season he was regarded as a serious contender, but that disappeared in the media frenzy over his statement that he was "brainwashed" by the Pentagon and military forces after he'd taken a trip to Vietnam. I think Mitt might have learned the lesson from his dad's candor too well, since he gives the impression of never saying a single thing that isn't in some way spin, marketing, or otherwise BS.

Needless to say, Mitt's dad would have absolutely no place in today's Republican Party. The idea of George Romney making excuses for torturing anyone is laughable, and it's to Mitt's everlasting shame that he jovially declared to an audience in South Carolina that he wanted not do away with Gitmo, but double it in size.

Posted by bluestatedon | June 12, 2008 3:32 PM

This website indicates there are 143,445 members of the Mormon church in Oregon:

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Membership_Statistics_U.S.

Unlikely that this will put Oregon back in play for McCain

Posted by jacob | June 12, 2008 4:49 PM

Re: Oregon, jacob says:

"There are 143,445 members of the Mormon church in Oregon... Unlikely that this will put Oregon back in play for McCain"

True. But maybe more interesting is not the total number, but the percentage of Mormons in the total population. Here's all those states with 1% or more:

STATE %
Utah 72
Idaho 27
Wyoming 11
Nevada 7.1
Arizona 6
Hawaii 5.1
Montana 4.6
Alaska 4.2
Oregon 4.2
Washington 3.9
New Mexico 3.2
Colorado 2.7
California 2.12
Nebraska 1.2
Kansas 1.1
Oklahoma 1.1
South Dakota 1.1
Virginia 1.1
Missouri 1
Texas 1

It'd be interesting to see what impact the Mormon vote might have if highly motivated in a squeaker election. In that case, I'd say any state with a Mormon population above 2.5% would be worth watching.

Posted by c cobb | June 12, 2008 5:23 PM

Romney seems to be a figure who most Americans find despicable

You misspelled "delightsome."

Posted by Brian | June 12, 2008 6:44 PM

People on the Left are so wrapped up in identity politics that they only credit candidates background with their ability to win the neat Lefty chunks of demographically defined voter blocks.

The pitfall of this is commentor after commentor saying that this candidate or that can only appeal based on ancestry, gender, educational background and class.

With Romney then, it turns discussion to being all about Western State Mormon percentages - rather than the more accurate assessment of voters there that "his beliefs and policies" reflect those of both Mormons and non-Mormons living in that region. Voting patterns of Rocky State Mormons and non-Mormons is quite similar.

With Michigan, identity politics people see his only advantage as his identity as a son of a popular former governor. Voters in Michigan - and encouraging signs of voters in Ohio, Pnnsylvania, Upstate NY, Wisconsin, Minnesota believing the same way - instead said they voted for Romney because he grew up in the region, has created jobs in the region, understands the voters, and is committed to doing his utmost to turning around their economic futures.

Yes, being Mormon helps him with Mormons the same way that being sorta black helps Obama with black voters and guilty white Jewish liberals that see Obama as their moral atonement. But their strengths are - in varying degrees of sucess - their ability to appeal past their "identities".

Posted by chris ford | June 12, 2008 8:18 PM

Voters in Massachusetts will flock to a ticket with Romney on it, because of all the wonderful things he did there... Like, you know, making fun of Massachusetts residents as a presidential candidate, while still serving as Governor of that state.

Posted by Joel | June 12, 2008 8:40 PM

Ain't gonna happen, guys. If Romney is the VP nominee, every red-leaning Bible Belt state that's in play this fall goes for Obama: Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas . . . maybe even Nebraska and Kansas, too. There are simply too many GOP fundies who will never, ever, ever vote to put a Mormon within a heartbeat of the presidency.

Posted by Vitelius | June 12, 2008 10:10 PM

"every red-leaning Bible Belt state that's in play this fall goes for Obama: Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas . . . maybe even Nebraska and Kansas, too."

Romney never governed as a Mormon, so those idiots you claim will vote for Obama (a man who is a far, far left radical Marxist, anti-second amendment, pro-abortion candidate, thinks those rubes cling to their guns & religion because their bitter) well then they just might deserve each other.

McCain should pick Romney and say he did because he was sick to death of all the identity politics the Democrats & Huckabee minions have been playing so he went with the "despicable" candidate for no other reason that he is the most qualified to be POTUS in his absence.

Posted by sheryl | June 13, 2008 1:38 AM

"every red-leaning Bible Belt state that's in play this fall goes for Obama: Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas . . . maybe even Nebraska and Kansas, too."

Romney never governed as a Mormon, so those idiots you claim will vote for Obama (a man who is a far, far left radical Marxist, anti-second amendment, pro-abortion candidate, thinks those rubes cling to their guns & religion because their bitter) well then they just might deserve each other.

McCain should pick Romney and say he did because he was sick to death of all the identity politics the Democrats & Huckabee minions have been playing so he went with the "despicable" candidate for no other reason that he is the most qualified to be POTUS in his absence.

Posted by sheryl | June 13, 2008 1:41 AM

There aren't any [Mormon Democrats] that I can think of who are prominent enough to be VP

If prominence is your only consideration, there's a pretty obvious Mormon Democrat out there. He may or may not be the senior senator from Nevada. He's obviously not going to be picked, but he's prominent, certainly.

every red-leaning Bible Belt state that's in play this fall goes for Obama: Virginia, Maryland,

Since when is Maryland a read-leaning Bible Belt State?

Posted by John | June 13, 2008 2:03 AM

So basically what that person in the request thread is saying is that the mormon vote wouldn't push McCain/Romney over the edge in those states, but the high-powered grassroots mobilization of Mormons canvassing for McCain/Romney among non-mormons would help a lot.

This makes a lot of sense. Mormons would canvass far more energetically with a Mormon on the ticket, but left unsaid in this idea (and maybe un-thought) is that Mormons are above average in civic-mindedness and organizational capability.

Hi, I'm the original requester, and yes, this is what I meant. I know that outside of Utah and Idaho, Mormons form only a small percentage of the population, that they reliably vote, and that they reliably vote Republican. My thoughts were that because of their organizational power, get-out-the-vote, and general campaigning, they might have enough of an influence in some of those "purple states" in the West to makes things more difficult for the Democrats. Not a huge amount, but if things are close, a few percentage points can mean a lot.

Did you actually look at any like ummm data before you posted this? Apparently not

The data that caused me to think people may be underestimating LDS political power was the results of the Republican primaries and caucuses in the Mountain West:

Wyoming: Romney beats Thompson 67% - 25%
Nevada: Romney beats Paul and McCain, 51% - 14% - 13%
Arizona: Romney keeps home state Senator McCain's victory margin down to 47% - 35%
Colorado: Romney beats McCain 60% - 19%
Montana: Romney beats Paul 38% - 25%
Utah: Romney beats McCain 89% - 5%
Idaho and New Mexico voted after Romney had dropped out.

The point is that those margins are HUGE. Now, obviously the very politically-minded fraction of the population is overrepresented in primaries compared to the general election, and even more so for caucuses. So I'm not going to try to convert those into general election percentages.

It's just worth noting that those kind of margins indicate that Mitt Romney was very popular with Republicans in the Mountain West. Even John McCain's regional influence couldn't get him a win outside of the state he lives in, and his win there was embarrassingly slim for the state's own Senator.

Probably some of that regional popularity was directly due to Mormons voting or working to get the vote out, and some of it may just be that Romney's particular outlook dovetails well with Westerners.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 13, 2008 2:30 AM

To those who ask what makes people think Romney could help McCain in Michigan: Gee, perhaps the fact that in a PRIMARY Romney not only won the republican primary BUT GOT MORE VOTES THAN EVEN ANY OF THE DEMOCRATS (OR UNCOMMITTED). SO, besides the fact that Romney was the most popular candidate in Michigan -- not much. Too funny.

Posted by bw | June 13, 2008 1:33 PM

This being the Michigan primary that didn't count and where a bunch of Dems voted for Romney in the R primary because they thought he was the worst possible general election candidate? That's what's funny.

I'm surprised California's over 2% Mormon. Though, as a typical Easterner, my impression of California begins and ends with San Diego, L.A., and the bay area.

Posted by David | June 13, 2008 6:25 PM

I'm surprised California's over 2% Mormon. Though, as a typical Easterner, my impression of California begins and ends with San Diego, L.A., and the bay area.

That's where a lot of the Mormons live, too. I grew up in Long Beach and had several Mormon friends in high school.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 13, 2008 9:58 PM

About 4% of the population in Oregon is LDS, as is about 3% of the population in Colorado. Those numbers appear small, but they are actually quite significant for a single denomination. The LDS Church is one of the largest religious denominations in the United States, especially in the western states. There are also large LDS populations in Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming...

While only 2% of California is LDS, California has the largest LDS population in the US outside of Utah, at over 800,000 members, making it one of the ten largest religious denominations in the state (possibly 7th). Most of these live in the large metro areas of San Diego, LA and SF, just like everyone else in the state.

Nationwide, about 2% of Americans are LDS. In the US, there are about one million more Mormons than Jews (ethnic, not religious; there are only about 3 million people in the US who identify as religious Jews) and about four times more Mormons than Muslims.

As has been said before, LDS members tend to vote in greater numbers than most other groups, and tend to vote heavily Republican.

Posted by aranhamo | June 16, 2008 5:16 PM

"Romney seems to be a figure who most Americans find despicable."

I think the bigotry in this statement is despicable. It is this same bigotry that the mobs in Illinois had when they drove my great great great grandfather from his home onto the western fronter in the dead of winter. The lies and bigotry should stop. Your hate is not justified. Learn the truth from a reliable source (avoid the distortions of those who earn their money by keeping the lies going and those who blindly follow them).

Posted by tetsudog | June 18, 2008 10:02 PM