Jon Huntsman’s 2012 Campaign Conundrum:
Huntsman was extremely reluctant to discuss his Mormon faith, perhaps recognizing the irreversible damage it did to Romney’s 2008 effort among conservative Christians. He took pains to prove his ecumenical credentials, as it were, by pointing to the “rich philosophical traditions” that led to his adoption of two daughters—one from India, and another from China. He also mentioned that when he was in office, “Utah’s governor’s mansion was probably the only one in the country” to celebrate the Hindu holiday of Diwali.
This hesitation aligns well with an interview he gave Fortune magazine last year, in which he said, “I can’t say I am overly religious. I get satisfaction from many different types of philosophies.”
Of course, Southern evangelicals may not be looking for a candidate with Hindu credentials, I told Huntsman. But he insisted that issues like religion are ultimately “just campaign sideshows.” In 2012, he said, voters will choose the president they believe can turn the economy around.
Most Americans are ecumenical. But of those who are not, a disproportionate number are concentrated among Republican primary voters. Many evangelical Protestants already view Mormonism as a “cult” because of its deviation into henotheism; expressing positive views of Hinduism will not help.
In Presidential politics, The Republican party is more moderate than a lot of people think. John McCain, GWB as of 2000, Robert Dole and George Bush the Elder are not Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey or Jesse Helms. That’s why I don’t think the former or Sarah Palin can be nominated.
But if they nominate someone more like Huckabee than like Romney, their 2012 electoral map will look like Goldwater’s.
While certainly, we can’t rerun the Republican primaries under controlled conditions, my sense is that most McCain supporters would have gone with Romney if it had been a head-to-head between him and Huckabee and that the death knell for Romney was his loss to McCain in Florida. He had underperformed in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he had spent a bunch of resources and because Florida’s delegates were winner-take-all, his 0.6% margin loss to McCain made it clear that McCain was the frontrunner.
Romney performed much better in the Northern counties of Florida than he did in the southern counties of Georgia and Alabama, which were part of the later February 5 votapalooza.
Certainly, Romney’s Mormonism was a liability (exception in the mountain west, of course) and it doesn’t seem wise to me for Huntsman to enter a field that already has one Mormon (thus splitting the willing-to-vote-for-a-Mormon vote), but then again, maybe one of the two will drop out before any delegate-heavy contests are held.
Perhaps Huntsman thinks that one of the best ways to put down roots for a 2016 run is to make himself known through the 2012 contest. After all, the Utah governor turned ambassador to China isn’t particularly familiar to the Republican rank-and-file.
But to address the post, I do suspect that his being a more ecumenical Mormon than Romney could hurt him. I remember Romney’s religion speech from the 2008 race in which he cast the real divide as being between believers and non-believers being fairly well-received. To some voters, Huntsman is not just a cultist, but he’s also a squish. That might turn off some marginal voters who would have accepted a Romney-type Mormon. Then again, I’m not sure that that group is too big in the first place.
Ultimately, I suspect that Huntsman, if he has appeal, will find it among the constituencies that supported McCain and Romney in 2008 and a lot depends on what his other positions are and what events come to dominate the discussion before January 2012. I do think that the type of voters who are particularly concerned with the issue raised here are going to vote for a Huckabee or Palin-type anyway, so he could get away with it.
In the end, there’s a lot of uncertainty here.
I might as well trot out map of the Republican primary results in 2008:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34457952@N00/2465737740/
Here’s the scale for color reference (Romney = blue; Huckabee = green; McCain = red):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34457952@N00/2440300276/in/set-72157604719710795/
All the light gray states would be colored red, since McCain was essentially running unopposed (Ron Paul doesn’t really count as opposition) and I was too lazy to update the map after Pennsylvania.
Unlike the Democratic primaries, there were several major shifts in the character of the race and the playing field was different. All Democratic contests apportioned delegates proportionally, whereas many Republican states were winner-take-all, so there was a more even character to the Democratic race and trends tended to cross state lines without much modification, even with vastly different dates. As you can see from this map, such was not the case in the Republican contest.
Like many I don’t think Huntsman has a chance. But he may be positioning for name recognition for the next cycle.
I actually think he’s more conservative than he’s given credit for. However civil unions for gays and immigration reform are unfortunately two litmus tests at the moment. It’s odd that the folk crying RINO are often supposedly tea party supporters and isn’t the tea party supposed to be about economics #1 and be more libertarian than typical Republicans? If so I don’t understand the opposition to Huntman. I get it from social conservatives who don’t like his more libertarian leanings on social issues. I get it from the folks who think solving immigration consists purely of high legal penalties and big walls. I don’t get it with the rest.
Huntsman has the same problem as McCain. He positions himself right on enough issues to portray himself as somewhat conservative, but always seems happy to bash other Republicans to garner media approval. He was rather noxious during the first few months of Obama’s administration, before he went to China. His criticism of the congressional GOP being irrelevant not only turned out wrong, but they were utterly inappropriate for someone aspiring to national office.
If he somehow gets the nomination the same way McCain did, by getting differing constituencies to cancel each other out, he’ll be in the same position as McCain, and find himself looking for another Sarah Palin to shore up his right flank.
I get it from the folks who think solving immigration consists purely of high legal penalties and big walls.
Any proposal that doesn’t start with enforcement first (and established before any amnesty) just isn’t serious. That’s the hard lesson of 1986, and a number of other smaller amnesties afterwards.
There seems to be some strange meme among moderate secularists (including some Demos) that Romney’s OK, but Hucklebees aren’t; Mormonism’s OK, but christians of any sort aren’t . Bullsh*t, as Penn Jillette might bark. Romneys are no better than Hucklebee-like yahoos–possibly worse.
The LDS remains at least as conservative and xenophobic as most protestant denonimations. LDS people are not Harry Reids ( quite conservative as well, except for a few admirable traces of New Deal Dems). In general mormons are far-rightist moralists, usually racists. They were one of the largest donors to the Prop. 8 cause in CA (and amusingly enough, one of the Big LDS-Utah daddies had a queer son who opposed 8).
The LDS did not allow blacks into churches until the 1970s (and in some areas still don’t). They barely approve of Romney (who may be considered electable, but nearly liberal). Utah-LDS-land nearly approaches something like Sharia law, arguably. The sons of Brigham Young–a more ludicrous, corrupt figure in US History can hardly be imagined– are still callin’ the shots.
“Utah-LDS-land nearly approaches something like Sharia law, arguably.”
Rolls eyes. Try visiting Utah. You might be surprised. There are certainly some silly laws here (although Huntsman was pretty pivotal in getting many eliminated). But nothing like what I encountered while living in the South. There are, for instance, no dry counties in Utah.
I have. Nothin’ like a Cedar City sunday (and was dry, until a few years ago)–that is, if Citizen X manages to avoid the Nauvoo Legion. The LDS also controls large sections of Nevada, AZ, and parts of California as well.
Actually, Clark, I respect some mormons. Or, mormonas at least. Once a Nauvoo maiden has been properly….re-educated, they are quite helpful and accommodating creatures.
“It’s odd that the folk crying RINO are often supposedly tea party supporters and isn’t the tea party supposed to be about economics #1 and be more libertarian than typical Republicans? If so I don’t understand the opposition to Huntman. I get it from social conservatives who don’t like his more libertarian leanings on social issues. I get it from the folks who think solving immigration consists purely of high legal penalties and big walls. I don’t get it with the rest.”
As a fusionist conservative who believes in both low taxes and big walls, I don’t find any contradiction. The tea party movement purposely sticks to economic issues so that people like me who believe in big walls and others who believe in easy access can put aside our differences and vote for cuts in government spending. But even as a tea partier, I am still allowed to think someone is a RINO because he is too liberal on social issues.