WaPo notes that Evangelicals Lukewarm Toward GOP Field, to which I say: why should evangelicals be any different than the rest of Republicans? Aside from the Ron Paul supporters who are so enthusiastic that they actually believe he is being under–polled by somewhere between 20 to 40 percentage points in some bizarre polling conspiracy, I would argue that there isn’t a candidate in the GOP field that really has generated broad (or even narrow) excitement.
Really, why else did Fred Thompson generate so much initial excitement for really no good reason except that he had a deep voice and had been on the teevee?
Meanwhile, speaking of evangelicals, Romney’s Mormon problem continues to be big enough that it is going to be a factor in the primaries (especially when combined with the fact that he just comes across as plastic and a flip-flopper on key issues). The DMN reports:
Dallas minister urges vote for a Christian, not Romney:
Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, said that Mormonism is a false religion and that Mr. Romney was not a Christian.
“Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise,” Dr. Jeffress said in a sermon Sept. 30. “Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.”
Some in the large crowd began to applaud as Dr. Jeffress continued with his remarks.
One suspects that Jeffress isn’t the only one preaching such sermons.
Sphere: Related ContentThe views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:05 am
The difference between cult and religion seems to be one of degree.
Get enough people to believe in your crap, and all of a sudden, you’re running a religion, not a cult…
We should start calling all religions cults…
October 19th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
[...] Earlier today I noticed that my post from this morning on evangelicals and the GOP field/some evangelicals and Romney’s Mormonism had been linked by both Real Clear Politics and Salon’s The Blog Report (thanks for the links, btw). [...]
October 21st, 2007 at 2:05 am
Actually, I have heard some very good reasons for why poll would be getting underpolled. Not the 20-40 you use to ridicule us, but a couple percentage points perhaps.
Reasons: Paul attracts people who have never voted, he attracts people who have never voted in a primary before, he attracts people who don’t necsarrily like Bush (which is who most Repubs voted for in the last Repub presidential primary), and he attracts a lot of hard-core anti-Iraq war types, who would never been polled as “likely Republicans”. Worth a few percentage points in a primary? I say probably. In New Hampshire Paul is at 6%…is it possible he’s actually at 8, 9, or 10$? I think so.
I think Barack is getting a point or two more of actual support for a few of the same reasons. They both resonate with groups that aren’t normally likely to be counted in average election years. The primaries have been getting more (and longer) coverage this year then I’ve ever seen, and there is more on the line, so it stand to reason that the scientific polls aren’t accounting for a few variables.
Just my two cents.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:10 am
Lol, I forgot the vaunted land line vs. cell phone only arguement. That, too, might have some small effect: I only have a cell phone, as does my wife; we’ve never been polled. Most years it wouldn’t matter, we supported the usual suspects. But this year we are both for Paul. We both young (between 25-30) and part of the this generation that doesn’t get touched by landline polls.
Maybe we’re just grasping at straws, but I see some valid arguments, especially given the huge crowds, signs, and support that is around. I have a hard time believing it’s just the dedicated few…but perhaps it is. We’ll have to see on primary day, eh? But then, it would be nice to have the extra buzz better polling would do–even those couple points would help, especially in states like TX, MI, NH, etc, where it could put Paul in the double digit support area.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:31 am
Ron Paul IS the only Republican with the cojones to answer the “would you consult Congress” question correctly. The answer really is right there in the Constitution. None of the rest deserve any respect at all.
Could it be that the Republican party is counting the next election as already lost, and saving the good candidates for 2012? Or are they just out of good candidates?
October 21st, 2007 at 9:19 am
#3,
It is wholly possible that Paul will win a few more points that his poll numbers indicate.
However, that will hardly translate into a victory, now will it? And that is my ultimate point. It will be a tremendous victory for Paul to gets into the low double digits, but at the end of the day that is still a loss.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
You main point is completely correct–at this point it wouldn’t be enough to get him electoral votes. I split hairs for two reasons though:
1. Breaking double digits would create buzz, which would help get him noticed and possibly considered by people who care about electablity, or who see his increased exposure.
2. In as much as his message is the most important part of his cadidacy, an accurate reporting of his support would play into how much his message is discussed at debates, in the MSM, and in everyday homes. Granted, Paul’s success up to this point has already sparked some debates, which I think is great. It is his message I care most about, so it is possible for me to win without Paul winning if he gets enough support to have a big impact on the discussion.
I will grant you that there is only so much impact complaining will do about it, so I tend not to. It was the 20-40 reference that got me to bite, heh.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
That quip about 20-40 was in response to several Paul supporters who actually think that his support could be enough for him to win.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:15 am
[...] Even stalwart Republicans aren’t exactly jumping up and down. Dr Steven Taylor (don’t ask me what he’s a “Doctor” of) over at the right-wing PoliBlog is yawning. [...]
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
All of these “Evangelical Third Party” threats are nothing more than posturing so that the eventual Republican Presidential nominee promises away all of his domestic policy to the Religious Right, the same way George H. W. Bush did to get the VP nod in 1980.
The hatred levels of the Religious Right, and Conservatives in general, for Hillary Clinton are so stratospherically (and pathologically) high that they would vote for Vladimir Putin for President of the United States before they would even think of allowing Hillary to get in. And no political position by any Republican Candidate will ever surmount all that Conservative Hate, ever.