Somebody explain this: Alabama and Mississippi voters fervently represent the Red State mentality, very conservative, very Religious Right, yet they allowed Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts moderate, to stay competitive in their states.
Evangelical Christians comprised the vast majority of the electorate that went to the polls in the two Dixie states last night. But among Mississippi evangelicals/born-agains, Romney was within three percentage points of Newt Gingrich and within six points of Rick Santorum (who certainly talks like an evangelical).
So, Romney benefited from being viewed as the “most electable” candidate, right? Well, maybe. But evangelicals, faced with a Mormon (Romney) and two Catholics, had a less-than-ideal choice to make.
After all, a pre-election poll showed that large majorities of these voters don’t believe in evolution but do believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
Yet, Romney did well among evangelicals in both states and he managed a statistical tie with Santorum and Gingrich among the Alabama and Mississippi voters who said a candidate’s religious beliefs matter “a great deal/somewhat.”
I don’t get it.
What happened to all that talk about Romney’s Mormonism serving as a major drawback for the candidate? Don’t many evangelicals consider the Mormon Church a cult? For that matter, what about two centuries worth of Southern evangelical prejudice against Catholics?
