Huckabee’s victory came from about equal support from among four groups. Evangelical support accounted for nearly half of the votes for Huckabee (46 percent), but three other groups gave similar support: 40 percent from women, 40 percent from young voters and 41 percent from poor earners (less than $30,000 per year). It is particularly significant that Huckabee got such a large percentage of votes from younger voters. Much credit has been given to Obama for mobilizing the youth vote, but it should be noted that 40 percent of Huckabee’s support came from young people!
Huckabee had to overcome extraordinary anti-Evangelical bias. The message of Iowa is that anti-Evangelical bias was extraordinary and overwhelming. Eighty-seven percent of non-Evangelicals voted against Huckabee, whereas only 66 percent of all Iowa Republicans voted against him — an astounding 21 percent gap. Medved shows that among those who self-identified as non-Evangelicals, Huckabee finished 4th (behind Romney, Thompson and McCain). It is significant that Huckabee got only 14% of non-Evangelical votes, while Romney got 19% of the Evangelical vote.
Huckabee energized Evangelicals and got them out to the Iowa caucuses –– 60 percent of the total number of voters! That is a significant accomplishment. It is blind prejudice when that powerful Evangelical voting bloc is lumped into one-size-fits-all stereotypes. And, it is incredibly close-minded when a liberal political commentator opines that an Evangelical candidate is ignorant and unfit for public office because his or her theology is Biblically orthodox. Such anti-Evangelical views ought to be renounced as quickly as racism or other biases. Medved’s analysis of the details of the exit polls goes a long way in exposing such biases.
Kerry Calls Netanyahu, Promises White House Doesn't Really Think He's Chickensh*t or a Coward | Katie Pavlich