And now Jon Ralston behaves in a totally silly manner for the Las Vegas Sun reporting on where the Public Policy numbers are leaning in the middle of PPP polling the state:
“Romney leads Newt by about 15-20 points. The main suspense may be whether he gets over 50%, he will certainly have a chance. Paul is 3rd and Santorum 4th, both around 15%. The chances of Paul besting Gingrich for 3rd are pretty minuscule.
You know it used to be we could wait for polls come out. However, we can solve this using high school algebra or approximation.
A=Romney
B=Gingrich
C=Santorum
D=Paul
C and D are around 15% of the vote. Assume C is at 14% and D is at 16%. C+D=30%
Therefore A+B=70% of the vote. A>B A=20+B or A=15 + B. Assuming an even number between 15 and 20 as we’ve assumed C+D=30%, then we’ll say. A=18+B, therefore 2B+18=70, 2B=52, B=26%, A=18+26=44%.
Therefore, we can guess that the polls in the first night in Nevada are:
Romney 44%
Gingrich 26%
Paul 16%
Santorum 14%
Of course, we could have avoided guessing and algebra if the reporter could waited until the poll was done.
Regardless the first night of this poll doesn’t take into account the Angle or Trump endorsements and we may have to actually wait until people vote to find out who will win in Nevada.
February 2nd, 2012 at 3:24 am
Thanks, Adam.
It’s been so long I forgot how to do algebra.
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:00 am
These polls are fine, but they don’t take into account organization. I am going to predict that Romney wins by more than 50%… Paul will come in 2nd, Santorum in 3rd, and Gingrich will be 4th. My guess is as follows:
Romney 54%
Paul 20%
Santorum 16%
Gingrich 10%
And the Endorsement will have little to no effect on the voters or the turnout.
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:09 am
Very funny stuff.
Thanks for the early morning chuckle.
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:03 am
I doubt the Angle or Trump endorsements will have any impact at all.
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:11 am
The polls in 2008 were WAY off.
We’ll see. I think Paul comes in 2nd.
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:56 am
How much will Mitt win by? Quite a lot.
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:00 am
Didn’t Mitt far exceed his ’08 Nevada polls because of a much higher than anticipated Mormon turnout?
In a thinly attended caucus like Nevada, getting that Mormon turnout right is the key to getting an accurate poll.
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:10 am
Poll: Romney nears majority in Nevada
According to polling from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and 8NewsNow, he’s awfully close:
Romney wins support from 45 percent of Nevada Republicans who said they plan to participate in the caucuses, the survey commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and 8NewsNow said.
Newt Gingrich is Romney’s closest threat with 25 percent backing, thanks in large part to Republicans who say they “strongly support” the tea party movement.
Rick Santorum edges out Ron Paul, 11 percent to 9 percent, although the Texas congressman often outperforms polls by turning out his loyal backers in caucus contests, where party members pick their favorites.
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:23 am
I got a Newt robo-push-poll last night. They first asked me who I was intending on voting for. They then gave me a series of
questions. It was paid for by his campaign. So he hasn’t completely written off Nevada. He is spending money here, though not much.
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:38 am
7. MWS. Yes. LDS pop. in NV is about 8-9%. LDS participation in the caucus was about 25%. So take the polling results, (unless it’s a poll of likely caucus goers), and give Mitt an extra 10% or so.
I do think it will be fascinating to see what the Paul Party can pull off in NV. He’ll be extraordinarily well positioned to tap into the NV political soul, and his folks have become wonderfully adept at gaming straw polls and caucuses. He won’t win, but if he somehow bumps off Newt, that will be a story for a couple of days, and regardless of Newt, I’d love to see The Donald be as marginally impactful in politics as possible.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:01 am
if it’s wrong to vote against Mitt solely because he is a Mormon, shouldn’t it be just as wrong for Mormons to vote for him solely because he is a Mormon? are not Mormons displaying religious bigotry to vote for Romeny in large numbers because he shares their faith?
just curious about how ya’ll see this issue.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:13 am
9
Lol. That must be how they’re getting their internal polling. Explains Noot’s flailing campaign well.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:14 am
11
Were you complaining about religious identity politics a couple weeks ago when Romney lost South Carolina?
If the answer to this is “no,” then I rest my case.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:17 am
I doubt that is the reason most support him.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:26 am
so it’s just a coincidence that 98% of Mormons vote for Romney?
lol
right.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:29 am
CM.11,
To answer your question; yes, identity politics is wrong. It is always divisive. Whether it be over race, religion, class, or whatever, it is at its heart an “Us verses Them” mentality.
However, consider these two facts. Romney leads Utah with about 90% of the vote. Only some 50% of Utah are Mormon. So even if every single Mormon in the state of Utah lockstepped to Romney’s tune, that would mean 80% of the non-Mormons in the state support him.
You are going to have to look to some other explanation as to why Romney is winning in the West than just “Oh, there’s just a bunch of Mormons out there, and they always stick together”.
(You were talking about how terrible religious bigotry is, right?)
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:31 am
CM,
“if it’s wrong to vote against Mitt solely because he is a Mormon, shouldn’t it be just as wrong for Mormons to vote for him solely because he is a Mormon?”
As a battle scarred veteran of many religious threads on this site, I’ll speak for myself….
I can understand why people devoted to some particular religion would feel an affinity for candidates that share their religion. For a smaller, culturally homogenous, and historically marginalized group like the LDS, I think that sense of “brotherhood” is even stronger.
I care deeply about religion (I’m Catholic) and think it is perfectly legitmate to consider it in a candidate IF you have good reason to believe it will impact his governing in some meaningful way. For my part, I don’t think there would be anything uniquely “Mormon” about a Romney Presidency. IOW, I don’t think his religion would prompt him to do anything that a mainstream conservative Christian couldn’t/wouldn’t do. So to me, his religion is pretty irrelevent. For those who consider Romney’s religion as a strike against him, they should explain why. If there is no “why” other than a general dislike for Mormons, I’d call that bigotry.
But I don’t begrudge blacks for their enthusiasm for Obama. And I don’t begrudge Mormons their enthusiasm for Romney, as long as it doesn’t turn to reflexive hero worship and intellectual dishonesty.
Shoot, I wish I had a Catholic hero in the race. One of the reasons I’ll be casting my protest vote for the Habsburgs is their historic defense of the Faith.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:31 am
I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of those that call evangelicals bigots for not supporting Romney, and yet completely over look the bigotry displayed by Mormons against others not of their faith.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:33 am
11. Many of my Mormon relatives are big Ron Paulites. But Romney fits with most Mormons politics (the foreign policy of Paul doesn’t sit well with most Mormons).
Mitt also is a “known factor” or “safe bet” for most Mormons, having graduated from BYU, having been a Bishop and Stake President, and having saved Utah (and by extension, the church) from scandal and embarrassment make him pretty much a “hero” in the eyes of most Mormons.
Huntsman wouldn’t be bearking 10% in Nevada despite all the Mormons.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:33 am
11. CM I think there is a difference between “I hate your kind, I won’t vote for you!” and “I love my kind, I’m voting for me!”
Neither is very sophisticated, but I think it’s a stretch to tell an Italian that voting for Italians is bigotry.
And if you are black it isn’t bigotry to vote for Obama. Here’s someone who in all likelihood is well atuned to the interests and concerns of your community. And, since you’re not likely to get that opportunity again, and it’s a matter of some communal pride even if that’s a little tribal, so be it.
Voting against someone because you have innate hatreds against the community he belongs to that aren’t based in fact or reason and even at that have little to do with performance in office is starting to move toward bigot behavior.
Voting FOR someone who is a lot like you is fairly uncontroversial.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:36 am
CM,
A couple examples from my own faith…..
It was often said that Ted Kennedy was so private about his religion, he wouldn’t even impose it on himself. He could safely be treated as a religious secular whose faith- such as it was- had zero impact on his politics.
Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, was very much a part of the “Church Militant.” He represents a nostalgia for the fighting confidence of the Pre-Vatican II Church. His faith heavily influences his politics on a range of issues, from abortion, marriage, foreign policy, and economics (though on some issues, he’s outside mainstream thought).
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:37 am
So if I say … I will only vote FOR Christians for president that’s ok? (and I get to define what is a Christian)
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:45 am
CM: In spite of what others may think of us Mormons, you’d be surprised how much we like ourselves!
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:45 am
All,
I am sure the Mormon voters in Nevada will use the same logic as the South Carolina and Iowa evangelical voters used.
That is to say ” I’m not really voting for him because he’s a Mormon he just really closely shares my views”..
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:49 am
CM,
“So if I say … I will only vote FOR Christians for president that’s ok? (and I get to define what is a Christian)”
Well, that’s certainly your right, and if you have good reason to think that the religions of the candidates before you would have a meaningful impact on the way they will govern, that’s a legit concern.
My sense from those who do oppose Mitt for his religion is that it has less to do with policy, and more to do with either (a) fear that a Mormon President would legitimize a “false” religion or (b) they consider Mormons alien, weird, and completely “other”.
I can at least sympathize with reason (a) in the sense that I think religion matters in people’s spiritual lives, but I think it’s a bit vapid to assume Mormon President= more Mormons.
Group (b) I have no time for, and generally urge their banning as soon as they show up. That is blatent, unthinking bigotry.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:50 am
There is a big difference between voting against someone because of their religion and voting for someone because of their religion.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:51 am
MWS,
So you’re saying Newt doesn’t qualify as a Catholic hero?
On a more serious note, what’s wrong with Santorum? Granted, he’s way too hawkish for you but so is every GOP candidate. Even Huntsman seemed to want to bomb Iran. But at least Santorum seems like an excellent Catholic personally. His wife is 51 and they have a 3 year old child. And had 7 other children. Pretty safe bet they don’t even use artificial contraception. Plus, you know, his economic positions seem at least socially justice oriented, relative to the GOP: he seems to be much more interested than most Republicans in the plight of those who slip through the cracks. He’s a grumpy bastard but I’d think a reasonable reaction from a devout Catholic would be “yeah, but he’s my grumpy bastard”. Personally, I’m getting to the point where, if by some miracle he’s still in the race come June, I might vote for him.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:51 am
18 – No one is voting against Newt or Santorum or Paul because they aren’t Mormon. Come on … don’t be a moron.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:52 am
22. CM, sure, but consider:
I don’t think Harry Reid, an active Mormon, wins elections in NV because of his Church affiliation.
Romney is going to romp in NV, due in part to the fact that he’s Mormon, he’s Republican, he’s performed in turn around roles magnificently, and he’s not just LDS, but he’s had significant responsibilities in the Church that LDS folks understand involve sacrifice of time and energy he could have otherwise spent in self-indulgent ways. From inside our culture we understand the kind of trust he’s been given, and the kind of sacrifice involved, and we ascribe to him, rightly, I believe, a degree of credibility anyone on the outside couldn’t quite grasp.
I can vote FOR Romney with enthusiasm as a result of how I perceive him, but I didn’t arrive at that perception as cheaply as you are describing. I can vote against Reid for a great many reasons, (and I’m assuming most LDS in NV probably do), and they didn’t arrive at alternative choices on the cheap either.
I’m pretty sure it works the same way with you, but, sadly, you will still likely appreciate and like yourself more than we do.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:54 am
22 – Who is saying they would only vote for a Mormon. One of the biggest gripes about Mitt is that he can’t be trusted. Most Mormons don’t have that concern. Are there some that vote for him only because of his religion? Of course. But there is no way to know how many.
When you remove the biggest concern people have about Mitt, is it any wonder people would vote for him over the other jokers in this field?
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:55 am
25. MWS LOL!!! All of us Mormons fall into category b! (but we prefer the word ‘peculiar’)
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:57 am
27. I think the problem with Santorum is that his level of grumpiness and his age don’t match up well.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:58 am
That said, as I’ve contended many times, I think the “anti-Mormon bloc” is much smaller than feared.
If we look at polls that show a sizable minority “uncomfortable” with a Mormon President, and combine those with polls that show Mitt has the smallest bloc of voters who “very dislike” him, I’m left to conclude that there is, in fact, a sizable minority who don’t much like the LDS religion, but who apparently aren’t taking it out on Mitt.
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:59 am
25. As an example, the movie “Napolean Dynamite” was not overtly LDS, but I’m tellin’ ya . . . .
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:00 am
MEM,
“So you’re saying Newt doesn’t qualify as a Catholic hero?”
Ummmm… let’s just say he’s no Thomas More.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:01 am
I’m Mormon. I’m voting for Romney because I think he’s the best candidate to go up against Obama, not because he’s Mormon. I think he’s a brilliant man with a capacity to turn around this country. With the overspending and mountains of debt, this country needs someone with a resume like Romney’s.
Of the four remaining in the race he’s closest to my political views. If there were someone better in the field I wouldn’t continue supporting Romney just because we share the same faith. If, for example, Mitch Daniels were in the race I’d vote for him instead of Romney.
I know a lot of my Mormon friends are open to Romney, but not necessarily sold on him. Some are leaning toward Santorum. Others to Ron Paul. I don’t personally know any that really like Gingrich, but I’m sure there are some out there. Many don’t like any of the four.
The fact is that Mormons are a highly homogeneous group – similar culture, similar political views, similar taste for candidates. I’m certainly not shocked to see around 85% of Mormons vote for Romney. I would be shocked if Harry Reid got 85% of the Mormon vote because most of them don’t agree with his policies. There may be small handful of Mormons who are voting for the religion, but the great majority of them are voting for the candidate.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:01 am
New Nevada Poll from the Review-Journal:
Romney – 45%
Gingrich – 25%
Santorum – 11%
Paul – 9%
http://www.lvrj.com/news/romney-poised-to-roll-poll-shows-138551749.html
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:02 am
33 – Except in South Carolina, where the exit polls clearly showed religion was a motivating factor in favor of Newt. The only way that makes sense is if people are voting against someone for their religion, not for Newt because of his.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:05 am
Dang,
I was hoping Santorum would get some momentum after the Newt Whine a Thon..and pass Newt..
Would much prefer a capaign with Santorum than Noodle me Newt.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:08 am
MEM,
“On a more serious note, what’s wrong with Santorum? Granted, he’s way too hawkish for you but so is every GOP candidate. Even Huntsman seemed to want to bomb Iran.”
Yeah, but Huntsman was just pandering, Santorum means it.
You’re right. On paper, I should like Rum a lot more than I do. But there’s something that just hasn’t set right with me about him for a while now. Granted, I’d vote for him over Romney, based on social issues/social justice (and pray for the best when it comes to executive ability and foreign policy). Maybe he’s just got a bit too much of that wise ass northeasterner in him that rubs me wrong. I don’t know. He comes off a bit self-righteous, and I don’t think he’s a particularly effective messenger of social conservatism. Plus he bailed out Specter in ’04, and as I recently learned, even supported Snarlin’ Arlen for President in ’96. So if he is the type of man who put Life issues ahead of political considerations, he hasn’t always been.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:09 am
Four years ago when Mitt was more of a novelty and he was running against Huck in Iowa there were some intense sensitivities involved. Running against Newt for years later? Not so much. Some, but not so much.
Of course, Newt seems to be starting to try to take us that direction with the ridiculous “Romney forces Holocaust survivors to eat dirt” negative ad. Somehow, that’s just so weirdo and bizarro that it doesn’t come across as religion-baiting. So, as long as Newt stays weirdly negative, and avoids obvious sensitivities (Napolean Dynamite references), I think we’re going to largely avoid cataclysmic R42012 blogger meltdowns, which is good.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:10 am
Let’s just remember that the polls in 2008 were way off. We can either assume they are still way off (less likely), or that they have learned from their mistakes (much more likely).
I still question the idea that Paul will come in last. It just doesn’t add up in a state with legal prostitution and tons of gambling. Or the fact that it’s a caucus.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:10 am
jax,
“One of the biggest gripes about Mitt is that he can’t be trusted. Most Mormons don’t have that concern.”
I think that is a good point. Many SoCons don’t trust all the shifts in position/emphasis/style. But those who look up to him as a stake president and bishop are going to be much more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:13 am
9 — I got the same push poll last night from Grinch’s campaign. A lot of good it did them.
I also got polled from PPP last night and in one of the questions, I was asked if I am a Mormon.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:16 am
44
If I were a Mormon Romney supporter, I would lie in the polls. I’d say I was an Evangelical Christian Tea Partier who makes less than $50,000 a year. Maybe that’s just me.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:17 am
Watch,
As for ’08 and ’12 comparisons I think you’re right, but I’d add this….
I was much more understanding of Huck injecting religious references without assuming he was baiting or blowing dog whistles because a) he is an ordained Baptist minister, and was an active pastor and b) he has always made his faith a big part of politics. Yes, he made one or two comments that were unartful or ill advised, but it’s not like he just found religion on the way to Ames.
Newt, on the other hand, has never made faith a part of his public persona, at least not beyond boiler plate politico stuff. He seems to have only found religion when the Much Feared Secularist came to office, and then again when the Mormon became the frontrunner.
So yes, in the case of Newt, I see his recent subtle religious references as more of a dog whistle and baiting.
Plus, Newt’s a POS who would never be above that.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:17 am
MassCon,
“If I were a Mormon Romney supporter, I would lie in the polls. I’d say I was an Evangelical Christian Tea Partier who makes less than $50,000 a year. Maybe that’s just me.”
LOL!
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:18 am
This algebra is flawed; it does not acount for undecideds.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:20 am
43 – Exactly. If you were confident that he was an honorable man with solid social conservative values, wouldn’t you be supporting him too?
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:21 am
Is the Nevada caucus open or closed?
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:23 am
46. Huck is authentic, no question. And I gave him less credit then than I should have for being positively connected to the Iowa constituents that he rightly identified with closely. I give him more credit now, of course, time and distance being what they are.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:26 am
Jax,
Yes, I would.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:27 am
MWS,
Yeah, his self-righteous personality is problematic but I think it’s largely a political self-righteousness. I.e, “I was hear in the trenches. Where were you?” And given the extent to which folks with less claim to consistent conservative accomplishments, or any conservative accomplishments (Cain, Bachmann), have risen while he’s been largely ignored, I don’t really blame him for being a little miffed. But when personal issues have come up- like Newt’s affairs- he’s given the most consistently humble and effective answers. So I’m betting it’s not personality trait. Just a general incredulousness that Newt and Romney are beating him. Lots of people should feel a little incredulous about that.
I actually think that when he talks about his personal experiences, he’s a pretty effective messenger in general. The experiences with a Trisomy-18 baby, and even his miscarried child, are humanizing and speak to a passion for life.
As for Arlen…well, I recall when Bachmann was in the race, and Santorum was trying to get some traction, his message for months was “I’m a grown-up. I dealt in reality. I had to make compromises in order to promote more important goals. That’s what grown-ups do. Michele is not a grown-up”. And I agreed with him.
Lots of folks have written persuasively to argue that Specter was key to getting Alito confirmed. I watched the hearings myself (it was after those hearings that I decided I was a Republican). He was masterful. Tough but, do his demeanor and moderate background, persuasive. He gave Snowe and Collins cover to vote for Alito and probably prevented a successful filibuster. If you’re Santorum, and you’ve been in Washington for a decade, and you know that the chairman of the judiciary really matters and that he/she can kill or save judicial nominations, and you know that Arlen’s an excellent chair, and you know that there will be 2 or 3 Supreme Court appointments in Bush’s second term (there were none in his first), supporting Specter is a rational and reasonable response for a serious pro-lifer. Especially if, as others have reported, Santorum secured a pledge from Specter to support all of Bush’s judges. The best reading of Santorum is this: he’s a seriously principled guy who doesn’t allow his dreams of an ideal world interfere with acting in the actual world. That seems to me fairly Catholic.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:30 am
Watch,
Huck was- for many SoCons- the first candidate in a long time who was unimpeachable in his committment to SoCon causes, had a qualifying resume, AND had a legit chance of winning.
In many respects, he was to SoCons what Mitt is to Mormons- our first real chance to have one of our own do it right, and do us proud.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:34 am
MEM,
That’s an excellent defense of Rum. My bigger problem on the Specter front was his support of Specter ’96 (for President) when Arlin was running on a strident and explicitly pro-choice platform. He ran in large part to do battle with pro-lifers.
But you’re right that everything else in Rum’s personal and political life speaks to a man genuinely committed to SoCon issues.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:35 am
54 – Mitt is that guy too … You just don’t know it yet.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:40 am
54. MWS Yes. I think many of us perceived George W. Bush in that way, that he was a Southern Socon with just enough FiCon/DefCon pixie dust from his father. Didn’t exactly turn out that way, but I think it maybe hurt Huck that he was following GW, and I mean in the Primaries.
Timing. Hmph.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:43 am
jaxemer11,
Whatever Mitt is, he is not unimpeachable on social issues. Lots of people forget, but there were some gruesome (from a social conservative’s perspective) stories about what he did to court social liberals in ’94 and ’02. Most of them haven’t leaked lately. I just remember them from ’08. He probably is actually pro-life and opposed to gay marriage; he may have always been pro-life and opposed to gay marriage. And irregardless, he’s exceedingly unlikely to renege now. But he’s given so-cons plenty of reasons to trust his convictions on these issues.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:45 am
Watch,
I recall not trusting W on the social issues in 2000. And I don’t think I was alone among SoCons who thought W was paying lip service while his carriage whisked him off to his coronation. Hard core SoCons often voted for Keyes.
Yeah, it was that bad……
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:50 am
58 – I never said he was unassailable politically. Obviously he isn’t. Be he is sincere in his social conservative values and will govern as a social conservative. He isn’t going to push anything down anyones throat, but as conservatives why would we want that?
I predict social conservatives will be more than happy with Mitt after eight years, despite their tendency to distort his record now.
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:50 am
Dan Quayle in 2000 had the unimpeachable conviction, and the qualifying resume, but obviously he had been mortally wounded by the media, his reputation among Indies unsalvagable, and so he didn’t have a legit shot.
Odd, perhaps, but he’s one politician where I will always wonder what might have been.
February 2nd, 2012 at 1:32 pm
I am from northern Nevada. I think that one of the reasons Mitt does so well in the west is not only because there are more LDS folks, but that everyone out in the West knows many people who are Mormon. In Nevada, Evangelicals and Catholics don’t have the same suspicion or concern for Mormons like you might find in Iowa or South Carolina. Everyone in Nevada works with a Mormon, is a neighbor to one, or is related to a Mormon in one way or another. Catholics and Evangelicals in Nevada will judge Romney on his ability to be president and not on what church he goes to. Romney’s faith would be a problem for only a very small percentage of people out here.
Romney won in 2008 by over 50%, but only 28% were LDS. I think Mitt will get more Evangelicals and Catholics in Nevada than Newt or Santorum.
In response to some who have suggested that Mormons only voting for Romney must be religious bigots. Mormons have never had a problem supporting someone of another faith. They have been voting for Evangelicals and Catholics for years. Who supported George Bush more than the Mormons? Bush won Utah by the largest margin of any state. Also, Mormons don’t just blindly vote for someone of their faith. Huntsman would lose to Ron Paul among the LDS if those were the only two candidates on the ballot in Nevada.