Chairman of Republican Party Explains Why Romney Lost (The Mormon Issue Again and other Myths)

I like Steele but I think he really has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth. Actually most of Steele's analysis here is ok but he should have as Chairman been wise enough to crawfish out of the question.

My main concern again is history is being re written. Romney supporters might not like what I have to say. But if you want your guy to win next time I would suggest these problems need to be corrected. Ignore it and lose again.

Steele was hosting the Bill Bennett’s radio show yesterday and took a call from a voter that was quite sure that Romney could have beat Romney if not for the NYT. Full text here

However lets focus on this part:

STEELE: Yeah, but let me ask you. Ok, Jay, I’m there with you. But remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you’re talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you’re saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn’t, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost.

The first question as to why Mitt lost should be asked as to New Hampshire. Why did Mitt lose New Hampshire? A state were those "infamous" evangelicals are not in big numbers. A State that has many Massachusetts expats. A State were much of the voting populating is in the Boston TV market and have observed Mitt for some time. Why did they reject him if Mitt was so grand!!! In the whole why did Romney lose memo and who to blame this is often ignored

I do think as to the Pro-Life issue there might be something there to a small degree. I do think the fact that Mitt had a few Road to Damascus experiences in a short period of time might have had some effect.

But again we get to the Mormon question!!! In the background of course is to blame this on all those bigoted Evangelicals!!

However as I have pointed put several times the exit poll data of the States shows that on the whole Romney competed quite well with Evangelical voters in a good many Primary States. Now he did not get the vast majority of them but I still can't figure out why that they were all suppose to flow to him by media fiat in the first place.

Mitt ,if you wish to look at it as to religious demographics, had much more worse Catholic problem than Evangelical problem. But this is rarely mentioned because well you does not fit the stereotype.

If there was a "Mormon" problem then it was very well counter balanced if not out weighed by is McCain really a Christian problem and Huckabee's religious problem. Huckabee had to deal with the distrust of Baptist preachers, a campaign that said he was anti Catholic and other matters. In fact in South Carolina he lost hard shell Baptist Counties in the North (and thus the Primary) because many voters resented his Bap-Coastal talk. Plus Huckabee was dealing with some intra Southern Baptist Politics too.

In much of this analysis I find there is another common error at play. That is how much of the conservative base (not the pundits) actually disliked McCain. It appears they did not though many wish to think otherwise.

If we start with New Hampshire we must end with California. Another state that Mitt apologists wish to avoid.

This was a McCain and Romney head to head race. Huckabee because of resources did not really contest it and it showed. Despite getting some nice traction from a great performance at California debate he was largely a non factor.

This was a State that many thought Romney had a chance to win and the Media buys were vicious against McCain. McCain not only won it but trounced him. Romney won just won FOUR Counties in the whole State and lost the most conservative ones that we were told would flock to Mitt. This race in a way put the nail in the coffin for the Huckabee campaign because no one expected the delegate count McCain got out of California.

Let look at the exits:

Mitt had a huge Male Gender problem- McCain got 45 percent and Romney got 33 percent

What about out those Religious Voters that we are told hate Mitt. Thought Huckabee did not contest the State he was on the ballot. He had a small effect here but not much

For those that go to Church more than twice a week (17 percent of the total GOP voting public)
Huckabee 34 percent , McCain 25 percent, Romney 29 percent!!

For those that go once a week( 25 percent of the total GOP voting public)
Huckabee- 14 percent, McCain -37 percent, Romney 38 percent!!

Vote By Church Attendance/Affiliation
Protestant/Weekly (18 percent of the GOP voting public)
Huckabee 26 percent, McCain 23 percent, Romney- 45 percent

Catholic/Weekly(12 percent of the voting public)
Huckabee 10 percent, McCain 49 percent, Romney 24 percent

Oops!! Look at that Catholic vote!! But wait I thought it was bigoted Mormon hating Evangelicals that were the cause of the Mitt's problem. Outside areas where Mitt was would sweep most demos in Primaries because of History and name ( Massachusetts and Michigan) Mitt had a CATHOLIC problem not a Evangelical problem. The exception being Georgia.

Why is this? Is it because Catholics hate Mormons?

I don;t think so and again we see Romney's problem

*The Catholic GOP voter is very pro-life (thus I think there was suspicion as Romney's Conversion on this issue)

*The GOP Catholic voter after looking at the Primaries appears to be a very Military inclined voter. McCain's service and his votes on military issues is often the over looked factor in this race and hurt Romney and Huckabee greatly among many demographics. Especially Catholic voters. I think we saw this very clearly in South Carolina and Florida.

* The GOP Catholic voter is much more moderate on immigration issues. Recall that Romney was hard line on this issue and was attacking McCain left and right.

But why did Romney Lose. I think it is simple. He came across as a mean SOB. If he wants to win in 2012 GOP primary he some fences to mend. This is often ignored by the Mitt Apologists. Jay Cost at Real Politics quite clearly laid out the problem early on

Why is it that most primary candidates refuse to run sustained, intense negative campaigns? The answer is that everybody is basically on the same side. An attacking candidate has to be careful about his opponent's core supporters. He runs the risk of alienating them - and they might ultimately refuse to support him after their guy drops out of the race. Romney might find himself in that situation.

His attacks on McCain and Huckabee have been as sustained and intense as any this cycle. And there is evidence that this has damaged him with the Mac and Huck factions. The Pew poll found that Romney's net favorable rating among these voters is not very strong: just +7% among McCain voters, and a whopping -9% among Huckabee voters. Of course, the sample sizes informing these statistics are small - but they are large enough to validate this modest conclusion: Romney is relatively weak among Huckabee and McCain supporters.

For comparative purposes: McCain is +30% among Huckabee supporters; Huckabee is +15% among McCain supporters; Giuliani is an eye-popping +69% among McCain supporters, and +33% among Huckabee supporters. [A problem Romney will confront if he wins the GOP nomination: he has a net -12% favorable rating among the general electorate. I'd wager this is also a consequence of the negative tenor of his campaign in recent months.]

Mitt;s People wish to ignore this. Too easy to discuss anti Mormons. Especially the pundit that love the blood bath part of this. But in the end I suspect that is what played the largest part in Romney's problems. If Romney repeats this in the next GOP primary he will lose again.