Who voted for Huckabee and why.
The analysis you've probably read this morning or heard last night was that Mike Huckabee won the Republican caucuses in Iowa because of evangelicals. The WashingtonPost.com headline right now: "Evangelicals Fuel Huckabee in Caucuses." You probably also heard a lot of references to Pat Robertson's second-place Iowa win in 1988.
"Evangelical Republicans in Iowa chose one of their own in Mike Huckabee," writes Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press. "He made his religious beliefs and his rock-solid opposition to abortion, gay marriage and gun control central parts of his campaign — and it paid off."
The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib agrees. "So much for the idea that evangelical Christians are a dispirited and declining force in the Republican party," he writes. "Last night they showed up in force -- in stunning force, actually. ... In a very real sense, evangelical voters, as much as Mr. Huckabee, won Iowa's caucuses on the Republican side."
Andrew Sullivan is fairly predictable, with the headline, "The Christianists Triumph."
ABC News explains the headlines: "Evangelical Christians accounted for a remarkable six in 10 GOP caucus-goers, and they favored Huckabee, a Baptist minister, over Mitt Romney, who's Mormon, by a broad 46-19 percent. Among the remaining, non-evangelical Republican voters, by contrast, only about one in seven supported Huckabee, and Romney won easily, with 33 percent."
But 46 percent of the evangelical Republican vote means that most evangelicals did not vote for Huckabee, notes Frank Lockwood of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Huckabee fan Rod Dreher of The Dallas Morning News notes on his Beliefnet blog that Huckabee "won just about every Republican demographic -- especially, please note, the middle-income voters and below. He was especially strong among younger voters. The only caucusgoers Romney dominated were the well-off ($100K+) secular urban moderates. If you think Huckabee's only a phenomenon of the religious right, explain those numbers, willya?"
In a separate post, Dreher continues:
Believe me, you don't get the [Dallas Morning News]'s endorsement by being a candidate who can only speak to religious and social conservatives. ... [I]f anything Huckabee's religious conservatism was a liability with our board. What carried the day for him with a majority of the board was his pragmatism, the fact that his religious beliefs (as evidenced by his record as governor) led him to use government to help those who are struggling to make it ... and the fact that he is pitching himself as a different kind of Republican, one who wants to distance himself from the wearisome partisan trench warfare of the past 15 or so years.
Don't discount the evangelical factor, says New York Times columnist David Brooks. Just understand that the evangelical factor isn't what some people think it is: "Some people are going to tell you that Mike Huckabee’s victory last night in Iowa represents a triumph for the creationist crusaders. Wrong. ... [E]vangelicals have changed. Huckabee is the first ironic evangelical on the national stage. He’s funny, campy (see his Chuck Norris fixation) and he’s not at war with modern culture."
It's wrong to assume that Huckabee's Iowa win was about "abortion, gay marriage, and gun control" and not about the economy, Brooks says. "Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has. In that sense, Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition. ... Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation."
So did Huckabee win because he's part of the Religious Right, or because he's not part of the Religious Right? I get the sense that Dreher and Brooks are downplaying the ways in which Huckabee resonates with the Religious Right even as other pundits wrongly equate that movement with evangelicalism.
But there's little doubt that Huckabee's opponents will try to paint his appeal as limited to the Religious Right. Why? They believe, as ABC's Gary Langer claims, that the Iowa numbers raise "the question of how well Huckabee's appeal can travel. There are far fewer evangelicals in some other states, notably New Hampshire; and their share in the Iowa caucuses, a low-turnout event in which a highly motivated group can have a large impact, may be hard to replicate elsewhere."
Could be. But those who think Huckabee's win last night is a rerun of Pat Robertson's surprising second-place showing in 1988 don't know what they're talking about. Not only are the two men very different politically, but, as The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti notes, "second place isn't a nine-point victory."
Posted by Ted Olsen on January 4, 2008 7:53AM
Comments
Huckabees huge victory among Evangelical Christians just further alienates me from the Republican Party (for which I am currently a member, although I do not know for how much longer).
As a Christian myself, I refuse to go along with the one issue politics of Huckabee and Evangelicals. Huckabee is not on par with many core beliefs of Republicans (myself included) and my own experience with Evangelicals both in general and politically has shown them to be very hypocritical “Sunday Christians”.
Also the Evangelical disdain of Romney simply because of his Mormon faith further disgusts me. This is interesting as Mormon growth in Massachusetts stagnated during his tenure there as Governor, so much for using his power as a governor or president as a bully pulpit.
I hope that either Thompson or Romney can prove Iowa wrong, if Huckabee wins the nomination, I am NOT voting Republican (which I am not on my local candidates anyway)
Posted by: Carl Strohmeyer at January 4, 2008
Excellent summary. Thanks Ted. Any stats about how many evangelicals chose Obama? I wonder if evangelicals explain both Huckabee and Obama winning in Iowa. I was just curious if there are any stats about that.
Posted by: Andy Rowell at January 4, 2008
Huckabee is dangerous. He panders to the dispensationalist crowd (i.e. Hagee), and will take into the office bad foreign policy views. Ron Paul is the man to vote for. We should not be voting based on religion.
Posted by: C.C. at January 4, 2008
Andy: I've had the same question ever since I saw the Entrance Poll data posted on the CNN website yesterday (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM).
CNN has the data listed for "born again/evangelical" only for the Republicans. Then again, it only has "union household" data for Democrats. I don't know whether that means only Republicans were asked about religion and only Democrats were asked about union membership. I doubt that. But I've been searching in vain for that data all morning.
Posted by: Ted Olsen at January 4, 2008
Good political punditry. Pay particular attention to this comment.
"...Rod Dreher of The Dallas Morning News notes...'won just about every Republican demographic -- especially, please note, the middle-income voters and below. He was especially strong among younger voters. The only caucusgoers Romney dominated were the well-off ($100K+) secular urban moderates. If you think Huckabee's only a phenomenon of the religious right, explain those numbers, willya?'"
Mike Huckabee is in touch with a sore nerve within the AMERICAN electorate. The elite and uber-rich of all political parties do not represent common folk. Using sophisticated tax shelters and offsets, the wealth pay no income taxes, thus shifting the direct burden to lower and middle-class Americans. The Democrats, who falsely claim to represent the poor and middle-class, are the worst hypocrites in this area. Add to this the outrageous multi-million dollar so-called "bonuses" been paid corporate executives, and the public is mad as #*&@! Romeny was/is one of these robber-barons. Thus, the FairTax is growing in popularity among the vast working electorate.
New Hampshire will be interesting. When Huckabee wins again (by a lower margin), how will the anti-Christian bigots explain this away?
Posted by: Dan Smedra at January 4, 2008
Huckabee has associated himself with the anti-Christian, Pharisaic Hagee. God help evangelical Christianity! Ron Paul is such a contrast, a Christian who does not follow the so-called 'Judeo-Christian' "Blessed are the warmakers, for they shall obtain the kingdom of oil" perversion of the message of Jesus. Jesus repeatedly cursed the Pharisees.
Posted by: Jason at January 4, 2008
For Governor Romney, the silver lining in the entrance poll results is that even among evangelical Christians he came in second.
Before Romney began his campaign, approximately 99 and 44/100% of evangelical Christians would rather have voted for the devil than for a Mormon.
For Huckabee's identity politics to succeed, he has to get that 99 and 44/100%. Ain't gonna happen.
Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com
Posted by: Tracy Hall Jr at January 4, 2008
With Huckabee, pundits can no longer claim that evangelicals and other social conservatives vote their morals in opposition to their economic interests. Huckabee, who calls himself a populist, gives evangelicals a candidate who understands their immediate needs as well as their religious beliefs.
Posted by: Rob Moll at January 4, 2008
It is annoying that there are no statistics regarding religious preferences related to the Iowa Democratic voters.
It seems that Edison Media Research is doing the entrance/exit polls for all of the primaries for all of the major news organizations: http://edisonresearch.com/
Here is a quote on their site:
"In partnership with Mitofsky International, Edison currently conducts all exit polls and provides election projections and analysis for ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC and the Associated Press."
These news organizations need to press for better work here from Edison/Mitofsky.
Edison/Mitofsky asked very different questions to the Republican and Democratic voters. It seems CNN inexplicably is the only one to have published the results.
Here are the Republican results: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IAREP
Here are the Democratic results:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM
The picking of the leader of the free world is too important to leave to incomplete analysis.
The media organizations should demand better from the Edison/Mitofsky.
Perhaps many of the Iowa voters who voted for Democrats, were evangelicals. Perhaps many evangelicals voted for Obama or Edwards or Clinton. But we'll never know. And if things don't change in the polling, we won't know for any of the other primaries either.
Posted by: Andy Rowell at January 4, 2008
The New York Times also cites the same statistics as CNN. No religious questions were asked to Democratic voters.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/20080103_IOWAPOLL_GRAPHIC.html
Posted by: Andy Rowell at January 4, 2008
How many evangelicals voted for Democrats in Iowa? We'll never know. And if things don't change, we won't know in future primaries either.
Iowa has many evangelicals. Many more Democrats (239,000) voted than Republicans (112,000). But the press is making a big deal about how most evangelicals picked Mike Huckabee. This is based on polling of only Republicans. If there are many evangelicals in Iowa and twice as many Iowans voted for a Democrat, then probably many evangelicals voted for Democrats. (Many of the young evangelicals pastors I know like Barack Obama and this seems to be borne out in an informal poll at Christianity Today where Obama only trails Huckabee). But we'll never know how many evangelicals voted for Democrats because all of the media organizations use the same polling data and the pollsters didn't ask Democratic voters anything about their religion.
It seems that Edison Media Research and Mitofsky Interational is doing the entrance/exit polls for all of the primaries for all of the major news organizations. Here is a quote on the Edison site:
"In partnership with Mitofsky International, Edison currently conducts all exit polls and provides election projections and analysis for ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC and the Associated Press." No wonder all of the headlines today sound the same. They are all relying on the same very limited data!
Edison/Mitofsky asked very different questions to the Republican and Democratic voters. The results are at the New York Times website. The exact same results are at CNN's website: Republican results, Democratic results. No questions about religious preferences were asked of Democratic voters while two questions were asked of Republican voters.
Worse, if things don't change in the polling, we won't know for any information about the religious preferences of voters for the other primaries either because Edison/Mitofsky is the only one doing polling for all of those primaries as well.
The media organizations should demand better from the Edison/Mitofsky.
Posted by: Andy Rowell at January 4, 2008
Mr.Carl Strohmeyer, let me try to correct your statement a little - we all are quite hypocritical Christians, yourself including, as I can see from your very ambitious, yet bitter statement, sir. If you claim to be a Christian you must know that we are only Christians because we all need Christ for our salvation, which includes redemption from our own nature. So, let's consider that all the "Sunday churchgoers" and everyday churchgoers are just a living testimony of God's grace, first of all. We may show differant dedication to our calling. But speaking about Huckabee, the guy who runs for President who talks and cares about people - to me, a little Ukrainian preacher, it's incredibly impressive! Because I saw a lot of big boys lately, CEO's and who-knows-what, controlling churches and denominations, coworkers etc. Sometimes I think I can feel God's grief for all of these people, His people! This guy, Huckabee, has compassion, Mr.Strohmeyer, a great yet almost completely forgotten treasure of this country. I can testify boldly that the world is looking for the leadership in America, with true vision from above. I beg you, sir, please, vote for Huckabee!
Posted by: Viktor at January 5, 2008
As a state Governor for 10 years, a Christian pastor for 12 years, and the author of several books, Mike Huckabee is more than qualified to be the next President of the United States.
In fact, Mike Huckabee's overwhelming conservative Christian credentials speak for themselves.
Among Mike Huckabee's conservative credentials are...
Mike Huckabee is Pro-life.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-military.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-defense spending.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-death penalty.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-second ammendment.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-veterans.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-family.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-prayer in school.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-school choice.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-home schooling.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-Israel.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-biblical creation.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-marriage being defined as one man and one woman.
Mike Huckabee is Anti-darwinian evolution.
Mike Huckabee is Anti-gays in the military.
Mike Huckabee is Anti-gay marriage.
Mike Huckabee is Anti-abortion.
Mike Huckabee is Anti-embryonic stem cell research.
Mike Huckabee is Anti-illegal immigration
(but doesn't hold it against the children who were born here).
Mike Huckabee is Anti-IRS.
Mike Huckabee is Anti-amnesty.
(yes, he opposed the amnesty bill).
Mike Huckabee is Anti-socialized medicine.
Mike Huckabee is Anti-euthanasia.
That's a conservative.
Don't let the secular conservative piranhas fool you into thinking otherwise.
Mike Huckabee is a true conservative.
Posted by: Mark at January 5, 2008
I am a newspaper reporter who freelanced for Edison/Mitkosky on caucus night. I and a partner were asked to cover the Republican caucus. (Republicans or so few in my county that they all met in the high school multi-purpose room). Four years ago, it was a Democratic caucus and only one. Bush was the only candidate on the Republican side, but Ed/Mit only canvassed one Democratic site, not all.
It is a shame that only Republicans were asked their spiritual viewpoint. Also, that you had to say, yes or no, if you considered yourself "a born-again, or evangelical" candidate. That means a United Methodist or Episcopalian who is dissatisfied with the liberal leanings of their denomation or a Catholic with strong conservative views would still end up checking no. And why not ask if someone was a Mormon to see if Romney got "all" the Mormon votes?
Posted by: Chris Faulkner at January 5, 2008
Post a comment