In a field with Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann as options, perhaps one of the bigger surprises of Tuesday's Iowa caucus was the support of evangelical voters for the Catholic Rick Santorum. Representing 57% of caucus-goers (down three percent from four years ago), evangelical Iowans gave Santorum 32% of their support while evangelical candidates Perry and Bachmann could only muster 14% and 6%, respectively, from their fellow believers.
Mitt Romney, who won in Iowa by little more than a carefully-coiffed hair, also only grabbed 14% backing from evangelicals. Those low numbers among the Republican Party's most important constituency could portend trouble for the candidate who almost everyone agrees would be the automatic shoo-in for the GOP's nomination if not for his membership in the Mormon Church. If unable to shake evangelical apathy (or perhaps even antipathy) towards his Mormon faith, Romney will come up short again in his quest for the Republican ticket.
But the results in Iowa shouldn't be read so hastily. And the primaries to come might disrupt conventional wisdoms about evangelicals, Mormonism, and the Republican Party.
First, it's worth looking at those numbers from Iowa again. While Romney clearly faltered among evangelicals in the Hawkeye state, it was at the expense of their support for a Catholic - not for one of their own. Between Santorum and Gingrich (who also received 14% support from evangelicals), Iowa born again caucus-goers gave the two Catholic contenders 46% of their vote compared to just 20% for the two evangelical candidates. While evangelical Republicans have often voted for Catholic candidates, rarely have they done so when they've also had one from their own flock to support. That evangelical voters in Iowa had not one but two fellow believers to choose from makes their tepid support for either all the more notable. Among the field, only Jon Huntsman, the Mormon candidate who essentially skipped Iowa, drew less support from evangelical voters than Michelle Bachmann did.
Secondly, it's easy to predict that Romney's poor showing among Iowa evangelicals forecasts more troubles for him with this crucial voting bloc in upcoming primaries. That Romney received more support from Iowa evangelicals in 2008 (when he came away with 19% of their votes) than he did on Tuesday certainly doesn't inspire confidence that he has successfully settled the "Mormon question" from four years ago. But if Mike Huckabee couldn't turn an evangelical-backed victory in Iowa into the Republican nomination in 2008, there's no reason to think that Romney's national chances have been doomed because only a few thousand evangelicals in Iowa found him tolerable this go-around.
Four years ago, evangelicals in key primary states like South Carolina, Florida, and Virginia helped give McCain the win over Huckabee, and in many other states like Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia, enough evangelicals backed McCain that Huckabee was able to escape with only the slimmest margin - victories that did nothing to help him chip away at McCain's overall delegate advantage. With Michelle Bachmann now out of the race and Rick Perry likely to soon follow, evangelical voters in upcoming primaries will have to choose from a narrowed field of contenders. If Rick Santorum can raise money fast and build a campaign infrastructure in battleground states while continuing to shore up social conservatives, he has the chance to wage a competitive race against Romney. Even still, it's hard to envision a scenario where Romney doesn't eventually grind out a victory, although perhaps a messy one.
While evangelicals aren't likely to jump en masse on the Romney bandwagon right now, enough of them will support him in the primaries ahead that he'll be able to amass the necessary delegates. Either way, the prospect of evangelical voters deciding between a Catholic and a Mormon for the nomination of the Republican Party means that a whole lot of political "truths" are about to get buried in the dustbin of history.
Follow Neil J. Young on Twitter: www.twitter.com/neiljyoung17
Michael Sean Winters: Falwell's Legacy: Why Evangelicals Oppose Romney
Rev. Susan Russell: The Santorum Surge: No Wonder Jesus Wept
David Van Biema: The Psalm In Santorum's Political Quiver
Evangelicals less united in 2012 caucuses - Behind the Numbers ...
Why evangelicals coalesced around Rick Santorum - Political ...
Evangelicals: 2012 may be ugliest in decades - The Denver Post
Mark I. Pinsky: Jews, Evangelicals and 2012: The Sky Is Not Falling
Santorum Seeks to Broaden His Appeal Beyond Evangelicals ...
As Christopher Hitchens observed, "Religion poisons everything".
Agreed - Iowans did not vote for a Catholic. They just want them some bigoted, rascist leaders to let them keep believing they're right and everyone else needs to follow their lead.
Fav'd!
"Among the field, only Jon Huntsman, the Mormon candidate who essentially skipped Iowa, drew less support from evangelical voters than Michelle Bachmann did."
I'm just shocked that they'd reject a woman. Shocked.
“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.”—On the Road to Civilization, A World History (Philadelphia, 1937), A. Heckel and J. Sigman, pp. 237, 238.
“The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, as a priestly and spiritual race, and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and more of holy feeling into the citizens of the state.”—The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848), Augustus Neander, translated from German by H. J. Rose, p. 168.