A look at Romney's hidden strength in Iowa

The possible downside of Mitt Romney's Mormon faith to his presidential hopes has been analyzed for months, and ultimately spurred his high-profile speech on the topic. Today, however, a Wall Street Journal story explores its upside -- the core of Mormons in Iowa who, it is anticipated, will be there for him on caucus night.

The story reports that although Romney "isn't actively courting members of his faith" in Iowa (an effort that might focus more attention on his religion than the campaign would want), he "doesn't seem to have to. Although he had very little national name recognition when he announced his candidacy, Mr. Romney was already well-known within the (Mormon) community, particularly after he ran the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City."

One Mormon leader in Iowa tells the Journal that he expects about 7,000 Mormons to attend caucuses on the night of Jan. 3, with about three-quarters backing Romney. That's a nice bloc to have in hand, given caucus participation.

As part of a recent poll that Iowa State University conducted, turnout for the Republican gatherings was projected at 74,000 to 103,000 (for the Democrats, the prediction was 130,000 to 175,000).

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[Sammy]

Romney will win Iowa, of that I have no doubt. The "mormon bloc" really can't be represented in the polls, and I bet it could actually be the deciding factor. I actually think, knowing many mormons myself, that he'll get more than 75% of the mormon vote. I would predict it be more around 83-85%.

[Bruce]

I agree--Romney will exceed expectations in the primaries. Since Mormons traditionally are much more politically active than the average American, that voting bloc will have a disproportionate sway that polls don't reflect. The effect will be even more pronounced in Western states with high LDS populations.

[Mark]

Romney will win Iowa in part because Huckabee is running as a religious leader. The vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with that. Romney has taken every effort to show the opposite (that he will lead and represent the people, not his religion), which will wind up being the contrast Romney has wanted. !) Evangelical Preacher with less leadership experience and success versus 2) Experienced Leader with proven success who distances himself from religion as a political tool. #2 will be the vote getter in this head to head comparison. Huckabee has other advantages though, and it will be tight.

[almanojodo]

Romney is best for the economy, immigration, and international affairs. He deserves the vote!

[almanojodo]

Romney is best for the economy, immigration, and international affairs. He deserves the vote!

[almanojodo]

Romney has my support not because of religion but because of his business expertise, immigration policy, and proven leadership experience.

[Young]

Huckabee surge is slowly sinking. You can notice decline of interest in his surge from medias easily. Romney will win IOWA and NH. Not sure about SC AND FLorida though.

[billy]

I believe there will be what you call a "mormon bloc" turnout. And I also believe that a good portion of them will vote for Romney. However, I think the real story here is that there will also be a tremendous "evangelical bloc". The difference is that Mike Huckabee is courting the evangelical bloc and Romney is not courting the mormon bloc. I don't even think mormons comprise 1% of Iowa, while evangelicals I understand is at around 40%. The funny thing is, I believe Romney will slightly win.

[wanda]

Mike Huckabee is a great orator. However recently I have had some problems with his hypocrisy.

Example #1 He had a great Christmas Ad. Why is he now distancing himself from the fact that he may have had a cross in the ad. I clearly thought it was a cross. But he goes on the morning talk shows saying it was a book case and not a cross. I am a christian and that turns me off!

Example #2 Some people say that Huckabee may have had weight loss surgery. I don't care if he had surgery, I think it is great he lost weight. HOWEVER , I do care that he may have had surgery and yet he tells the American people that they should eat well and exercise, as if that is the way he got thin! If that is the case that is hypocrisy!

[Tyler Jensen]

The political arena is no place for religious dicussion. Politics is a mean, dirty and nasty business.

And a very wise man once said, "Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matt. 7:6)

I'm a Mormon (no, the nickname does not bother me) and I think Mitt made a mistake in trying to woo the so called "religious right" in order to pass their anti-constitutional religious litmus test.

Mitt tried to put one foot in the pig pen without getting anything on his shoe. Now the swine have grabbed hold and will do their best to trample under their feet that which they cannot understand and rend that which they cannot accept. Mitt should have known this would happen.

A few of my church's greatest critics call themselves evangelical Christians. They show up at our general church conferences in Salt Lake to mock and harass members attending conference sessions. I think people of good will can characterize for themselves such behavior and all the savage remarks posted in the blogosphere about Mormons.

I worry that the surge for a religious litmus test will put us on a slippery slope to the same place that radical militant Islam finds itself today. Leave politics to the swine and keep religion in your home, your family and your church or synagogue or mosque.

[tarbubble]

FYI, we're not all automatic Mitt supporters. in my entire LDS family, i'm not sure we have any Republicans. Maybe on my husband's side...

Tyler - well put. faith in politics is pearls before swine.