Bart Burk Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 I doubt you would ever get a scientific study to verify this, but in such a close election it is very likely enough people stayed home voted third party or voted for Obama just because Romney was a Mormon, especially in Florida, Virginia and Ohio. If only three percent did this it cost Republicans the election. I don't doubt that at all.
Storm Rider Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 It is possible, but anything is possible. I am not sure of the value of such a discussion, particularly when there are also so many other things to blame it on. Not taxing the rich more is a problem for me; not having an alternative to Obama-care is a problem for me; going on a trip to Europe and putting his foot in his mouth is a problem for me; being as stiff as cardboard is a problem for me; playing it safe in the third debate is a problem for me; picking Ryan was not the best decision; this can go on and on. Is being a Latter-day Saint a problem for some people in the United States? Absolutely! How many other things are more important to voters? Too many to count.
Damien the Leper Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 I don't believe he was able to get the Evangelical vote because he wouldn't address certain social issues. The Republican party is a dying breed anyway. Progressivism and post-modernism is paving a road to a more pluralistic future. The room for ultraconservativism is becoming standing room only and is very uncomfortable.
Bart Burk Posted November 11, 2012 Author Posted November 11, 2012 What especially opened me up to this idea was perusing political boards after the election and finding so many so-called conservative voters proclaiming they would never have voted for a Mormon. It wouldn't have taken very many of those kind to switch the election. Most voters vote on the issues, but enough of them don't to make a difference.
thesometimesaint Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 Only about half the eligible voters vote. In non-Presidential election years it runs more like 25%. That has a much bigger effect than any supposed antimormon voters.I obviously have nothing against Romney's religion, and I did not vote for him.
mtomm Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 Actually, you can find the answer, it is asked in exit polling. They voted for Romney. Overwhelmingly.http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx"At the other end of the political spectrum, nearly eight-in-ten white evangelical Protestants voted for Romney (79%), compared with 20% who backed Obama. Romney received as much support from evangelical voters as George W. Bush did in 2004 (79%) and more support from evangelicals than McCain did in 2008 (73%). Mormon voters were also firmly in Romney’s corner; nearly eight-in-ten Mormons (78%) voted for Romney, while 21% voted for Obama. Romney received about the same amount of support from Mormons that Bush received in 2004. (Exit poll data on Mormons was unavailable for 2000 and 2008.)" 1
Calm Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 I think a greater impact of his faith was not the direct refusal to vote for him, but how much effort it took to deal with it, especially before the Primary. His campaign never got any momentum until the debates and that wasn't soon enough.
wenglund Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) I doubt you would ever get a scientific study to verify this, but in such a close election it is very likely enough people stayed home voted third party or voted for Obama just because Romney was a Mormon, especially in Florida, Virginia and Ohio. If only three percent did this it cost Republicans the election. I don't doubt that at all.My view is that the election had very little, if anything, to do with Mitt's religion, and virtually everything to do with the continued shift in the country's thinking towards what is now being affectionately called "progressive-ism." More and more people want big government and a nanny state. And, that is their right to choose, and we all will receive the consequences of that decision--whether for good or ill.Granted, more people stayed home and didn't vote this time around for Romney than in 2008 for McCain (mostly senior citizens). However, pundits attribute that drop predominately to ultra conservatives who were more fine with seeing a staunch liberal elected than their voting for a moderate conservative.In short, the election was won and turned on politics and not religion, just as it did in 1960 when a Catholic ran for office. For once I agree with Chris Matthews, who said that there is no longer effectively a religious test for politicians--the 2008 Republican primaries notwithstanding.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited November 11, 2012 by wenglund
thesometimesaint Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible.
Blah Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 The problem was not Romney's faith, it was Romney. 1
KevinG Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 Single women voted for Obama overwhelmingly while married women went for Romney.It wasn't his religion. It was daddy issues. 2
wenglund Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 The problem was not Romney's faith, it was Romney.Tis true. Romney has the increasingly uncommon character flaw of not buying votes through government handouts that can't be afforded. It was expected that people would be put off by Romney's disinclination to mortgage his children and grandchildrens' future. As Rush astutely put it, the problem was, Romney wasn't Santa Clause.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
mtomm Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 Single women voted for Obama overwhelmingly while married women went for Romney.It wasn't his religion. It was daddy issues.Single women are looking for a daddy? Besides just being rude and insulting I think your psychology is wrong.
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 Tis true. Romney has the increasingly uncommon character flaw of not buying votes through government handouts that can't be afforded. It was expected that people would be put off by Romney's disinclination to mortgage his children and grandchildrens' future. As Rush astutely put it, the problem was, Romney wasn't Santa Clause.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Well except to the wealthy when he promised he would keep taxes at their insanely low levels even though the nation is near bankrupt. Ho ho ho to all the wealthy out there.Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives but their actions are too loud for their claims to have any meaning. A shame. I would vote for a practical and fiscally conservative candidate.
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 Single women voted for Obama overwhelmingly while married women went for Romney.It wasn't his religion. It was daddy issues.How delightfully misogynistic.
wenglund Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 Single women are looking for a daddy? Besides just being rude and insulting I think your psychology is wrong.There is nothing rude or insulting to point out the obvious. After all, the Dems made Sandra Fluke their poster child for women's issues.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
Deardorff Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 About a month before the voting I gave a presentation to two voter groups who were researching candidates. My part was Romney's mormonism. I pointed out the promises he made in the Temple and quoted specifically from the ceremony and showed online references(correct references) to the effect his first allegiance is to his Church, not the Constitution of the United States.Also used the Oath of Vengeance that was part of the Temple Ceremony under Brigham Young and until the 1920's. A number of other references from the Smoot hearings.The upshot was that many understood where Romney's allegiance lie and they could make up their own mind. The item that got the most questions was Why in the world any sane person would believe American Indians came from Israelites - followed by why any sane person would believe the Missouri stuff - from Garden of Eden to Jesus coming there when he returns to Earth.Third most questioned were Romneys statements others found online about his switch from ProLife to ProChoice only after checking with his church leaders in Salt Lake City. That was damning in its effect at these get togethers.Part of Romney's not getting votes in our area was his and his sons lack of military service. Romney's own statements of mission and school to keep from being drafted was brought up by a number of Veterans at these 'inform the voter' meetings. Being in an area where many enlist and serve, this was more of a deal breaker than religion for these folks.President Obama isn't that popular but he is a known quantity while Romney was never outspoken on his religion, his firm stands or military obligations to his nation.
wenglund Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 Well except to the wealthy when he promised he would keep taxes at their insanely low levels even though the nation is near bankrupt. Ho ho ho to all the wealthy out there.I am not sure how it makes sense to consider Romney as Santa Claus for letting certain people keep their own money, particularly when percentage wise those people are still keeping less of their income than the general population? I think you have it exactly backwards. Handouts are when you give people other people's money in hopes that they will vote for you.Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives but their actions are too loud for their claims to have any meaning. A shame. I would vote for a practical and fiscally conservative candidate.I don't know what is more practical than hiring a guy for the job who has a proven track record for turning businesses around and getting people back to work and striving to keep trillions of our oil money here at home and excising trillions of dollars of new government entitlements we can't afford and which way over-burden our children. Certainly, I don't see how it is less practical than the only other viable alternative. But, to each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
thesometimesaint Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 There is nothing rude or insulting to point out the obvious. After all, the Dems made Sandra Fluke their poster child for women's issues.Thanks, -Wade Englund-It was Rush, and Republican surrogates like Foster Friess with aspirin between their legs, in their ignorant reactionary misogynistic diatribes against Ms. Fluke testimony to Congress that made the Republican Party the poster child of misogynists.
thesometimesaint Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 I am not sure how it makes sense to consider Romney as Santa Claus for letting certain people keep their own money, particularly when percentage wise those people are still keeping less of their income than the general population? I think you have it exactly backwards. Handouts are when you give people other people's money in hopes that they will vote for you.I don't know what is more practical than hiring a guy for the job who has a proven track record for turning businesses around and getting people back to work and striving to keep trillions of our oil money here at home and excising trillions of dollars of new government entitlements we can't afford and which way over-burden our children. Certainly, I don't see how it is less practical than the only other viable alternative. But, to each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Never let a good diatribe to get in the way of the facts.
wenglund Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) It was Rush, and Republican surrogates like Foster Friess with aspirin between their legs, in their ignorant reactionary misogynistic diatribes against Ms. Fluke testimony to Congress that made the Republican Party the poster child of misogynists.Some people unwarrantably toss around the pejorative of misogyny as cover for the stridently embarrassing proposition presented by the aptly named Miz Fluke, and to irrationally dismiss legitimate criticisms. What else is to be expected from those attempting to defend the indefensible. Sadly, there was way too much of this in the last election, though it was partly effective in getting someone reelected.But, perhaps we are waxing a bit too political. And, so I will try and restrain myself.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited November 11, 2012 by wenglund
wenglund Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) Never let a good diatribe to get in the way of the facts.I appreciate your self-admission. It suggests that you aren't entirely in denial. And, I will take it as a tacit apology.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited November 11, 2012 by wenglund
mbh26 Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 Tis true. Romney has the increasingly uncommon character flaw of not buying votes through government handouts that can't be afforded. It was expected that people would be put off by Romney's disinclination to mortgage his children and grandchildrens' future. As Rush astutely put it, the problem was, Romney wasn't Santa Clause.Thanks, -Wade Englund-I think I found something we totally agree on.
thesometimesaint Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 Some people unwarrantably toss around the pejorative of misogyny as cover for the stridently embarrassing proposition presented by the aptly named Miz Fluke, and to irrationally dismiss legitimate criticisms. What else is to be expected from those attempting to defend the indefensible. Sadly, there was way too much of this in the last election, though it was partly effective in getting someone reelected.But, perhaps we are waxing a bit too political. And, so I will try and restrain myself.Thanks, -Wade Englund-It was Rush that repeatedly called Ms Fluke a slut. There is NO legitimate public criticism of a private highly personal decision on what if any birth control to use, or of anyone's sex lives for that matter. You are WAY OUT OF LINE for even suggesting that.What defend the right of a young woman to testify before Congress along with a bunch of old men? My goodness what has this country come to when we allow women a voice.
Nathair/|\ Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 It was Rush that repeatedly called Ms Fluke a slut. There is NO legitimate public criticism of a private highly personal decision on what if any birth control to use, or of anyone's sex lives for that matter. You are WAY OUT OF LINE for even suggesting that.What defend the right of a young woman to testify before Congress along with a bunch of old men? My goodness what has this country come to when we allow women a voice.It is legitimate to criticize her for trying to force me to pay for it when I don't even know her and will likely never meet her.
Recommended Posts