Jon Meachem Speaks...

It's been a long time since I've posted. The primary season has only been interesting in the media sense, roughly since Super Twosday. And I've been working on my thesis and a million other things.

I did, however, have time to go see Jon Meachem, editor of Newsweek, deliver a talk on religion in politics. His talk was mostly historical, and he was pretty funny. He said that he was heartened by the fact that religion has not been particularly divisive in this cycle.

But I think he's wrong about one key point. In answering a relatively unrelated question, he said, "Governor Romney didn't lose because he was a Mormon; he lost because he was Governor Romney" and then clarified what he meant.

I disagree with this assessment. I think that he lost because he's a Mormon.

Romney's defeat comes down to two things, I think:

1. Bad luck: Check out Michael Barone's take on Romney's loss. Basically, if Romney had picked up THREE percentage points in various states, he would have been in far better position post Super Tuesday, maybe even good enough to win. Romney was VERY close. He lost the momentum campaign far sooner than he lost a delegate race (and the GOP's winner-take-all rules didn't help either).

2. Iowa: The Iowa caucuses are a huge deal. Mike Huckabee didn't have much clout anywhere that didn't have heavy Evangelical populations, so, save a miracle of some sort, Huckabee was not going to win the nod in 2008 (by 2012, he may have made himself more appealing to non-Evangelical Republicans). Romney, though, had some support everywhere, certainly the beginnings of a coalition to win the nomination.

Romney lost Iowa by 9 percentage points, and he outspent Huckabee by tons. Republican caucuses aren't as convoluted as Democratic ones (the Dems' method may or not be better for caucusing, honestly), so it's pretty straightforward to do a quick-and-dirty calculation.

36% of Iowa Republican caucusers said that the candidate's religion mattered a great deal (42,729, overall). Those people supported Huckabee over Romney 5:1. Yeah, 5:1. Here's the details for that 36% of caucusers:

Huckabee - 56%
Romney - 11%
Thompson - 11%
McCain - 11%
Paul - 8%
Giuliani - 2%
Hunter - 1%

Huckabee got 23,928 voters who said that religion was greatly important. Romney got 4,700.

Let's pretend for a bit that Romney was a serious Methodist. Imagine if the 36% of Iowa Republican caucusers had supported Huckabee 3:2 because he's a minister. Here's the new adjustment:

Huckabee - 40%
Romney - 27%
Thompson - 11%
McCain - 11%
Paul - 8%
Giuliani - 2%
Hunter - 1%

In my imaginary scenario, Huckabee got 17,092 votes, and Romney got 11,537 votes. What would this swing do to the overall vote totals?

Original Vote Totals

Huckabee - 40,841
Romney - 29,949

Mormon-Adjusted Vote Totals (Huckabee gets 3:2 edge on people who said that religion is "greatly important")

Romney - 36,786
Huckabee - 34,005

Now, my scenario is SPECULATIVE, but to dismiss the fact that Romney's Mormonism hurt him is unfounded, when it's this easy to concoct a scenario like this.

For the record, the break-even point on my little study was if Huckabee had gotten 2.23x as many voters who said that religion was "greatly important." Those numbers:

Huckabee - 46%
Romney - 21%
Thompson - 11%
McCain - 11%
Paul - 8%
Giuliani - 2%
Hunter - 1%

Pretty stark. I think his Mormonism did matter, at least enough to make that kind of swing. A Romney win in Iowa might have netted him New Hampshire, which might have put him on a clear course for the nomination. It certainly would have changed the race a lot.