Posted on 10/02/2011 1:17:04 PM PDT by Amerisrael
A Palin victory will depend on the decisions the voters will make based upon her record in Alaska and the solutions she presents to the problems currently plaguing this country.
Once a primary is running full force, most voters don’t remember or give the slightest hoot as to which candidate had jumped in a full year ahead of the game and which candidate is only in the race a half a year or three quarters of a year. Votes based on such calculations are petty, foolish, and therefore probably non-existent. When questioned at exit polls, voters usually point to a particular position on policy which they feel strongly about, or an approach to a current problem and which they feel their candidate has got it right.
Yes, in 2008 many voted for Obama mainly to assuage their conscience, feel righteous, and join those creating history. But by and large, especially in difficult times, voters vote for a candidate because of their confidence in him or her to lead the country and to deal with the issues.
Additionally, Obama’s grandiose though empty promises were also the deciding factor for many of those who voted for him and were swept up, up, up and away in his euphoric rhetoric only to have since landed back to reality with a painful thud. In 2012, promises will therefore not be enough. Candidates are and will continue to be requested to provide proof to their claims and promises via their records and undergo careful scrutiny and questioning about specifics in their past.
Those that have repeatedly attempted to nail Palin down to a date at which she must declare her candidacy or the games is over, are therefore either ignorant of the facts or purposely attempting to mislead the people. For what difference does it now make to anyone that Romney has announced his candidacy on the specific date he chose to do so or that Perry’s announcement came after Romney’s?
Since these are the same individuals who mock the millions of her supporters as idiotic and foolish for allowing themselves to be strung along and taken for a ride, it appears to be the latter. For her supporters are comprised of a diverse group of Americans who are united in that they actually aren’t afraid to think for themselves and haven’t allowed the pundits to decide for them who they must support and vote for. They falsely portray the vast majority of her supporters as cultists, worshipers, and the like, totally ignoring the incredible amounts of knowledge these supporters know about her record, which is why they are ready to do all they can to see her win this nomination. It’s not about the person itself, but about the ideology, record, and achievements behind her, and the clear and bold solutions she constantly presents to ensure success in the future, which no other candidate comes close to her heels.
It’s pretty comical to watch how many who’ve gone utterly berserk over the fact that Palin hasn’t yet announced her candidacy despite her having said last week that there won’t be any announcement before the end of September, are the very same people who’ve had no problem when other candidates such as Perry has retracted his promise from the 2010 campaign not to run for the presidency. If it’s perfectly understandable that times have changed in the last year and a half which thus caused him to have a change of mind, how is that so different from pushing off a decision another couple of days or weeks due to political shifting? This isn’t a reversal on policy such as Perry on Gardasil and Romney on just about everything. The actual timing of the announcement, although it may have an effect on the style and other aspects of her campaign, won’t be of any serious significance to the voters in the weeks and months afterwards.
Ultimately, a decision will be made and we will all be privy to it. Those who’ve mocked and derided her for stringing along her supporters while not planning to run and seeking only publicity and attention will probably be proven wrong, and left to scramble with something somewhat comprehensible in response, while those who’ve had to deal with the scorn and endless name-calling will watch in amusement. For those who laugh last, laugh best.
Actually, we have two very conservative House members: Jason Chaffetz and Rob Bishop. We also have the newly elected Senator Mike Lee who is also very conservative.
- - - -
Mike Lee - LDS
Jason Chaffetz - LDS
Rob Bishop - LDS
How about those who are not LDS? Where are they on the spectrum?
Sorry, long day. Just got home. LOL.
Look, I agree this was a high percentage that voted for Romney in Utah's 2008 Primary. If Romney's percentages run this high in Utah in 2012...well, lets just say that I'll be extremely disappointed in my fellow Utahans, and i will certainly concede that you were correct in your assertions.
I'm hopeful that even die-hard Mormons will look beyond Romney's Mormonism, and see that this guy is a compromising, middle of the road, reach across the aisle, RINO! I'm hopeful Mormons will comprehend all of the destruction that Obama has brought upon our nation, and realize Romeny’s squishy positions on many issues (and his RomneyCare!) will not fix the problems that need to be fixed.
As i mentioned last night, the only “game changer” left is Palin. She's been vetted like no other, and is standing stronger than ever. The left has made Palin stronger than we could’ve ever imagined. They tried to destroy her and they failed. She's the only one the Left (and Obama) truly fear.
I understand where you are coming from, however we cannot discount the attitudes of the LDS. Palin would take votes away from the non-LDS conservatives who voted for Romney last time (there has to be some unless they stayed home), but she will not get much (if any) of the LDS vote. She is an Evangelical and that will hurt here there.
I will say, as I said above, the revivial going on in Utah and Palin may lower Romney’s percentage a little but I am betting he will still win by at LEAST 70-75% and probably higher.
In every election, there are those who write the voter guides (Hubby and I did several for YAF, YR, CR, CRA, CalGOP in Southern California) and there are those who just pick up a voter guide and vote accordingly. In many ways, Utah is like that. They will vote for the LDS guy, and there are some I know personally, who are normally conservative but really believe Romney is the fulfillment of the “White Horse” prophecy and will vote for him for that reason alone.
I would be really interested in the breakdown of the non-LDS Utah state legislatures and their districts. Do you know how I can find one?
Jason Chaffetz - LDS
Rob Bishop - LDS
How about those who are not LDS? Where are they on the spectrum?
_________________________________________________
If these guys are conservative, and they are, who cares what their religion is? Rob Bishop is my Congressman, when i went to pull the lever for him; I didn't ask: “Gee, I wonder what religion he is?” It didn't matter! The only thing that mattered was that the guy voted like a conservative. Witht eh Utah population being heavily Mormon; the odds on the candidate being LDS are fairly high. As a non-LDS member, their religion never came into to play in my decision to vote for them. I voted for them because they were conservative.
Since you're the one who keeps making it an issue, why don't you tell us all of the other non-LDS candidates that were pushed out of the races to accomodate the above mentioned candidates who won? Good grief, I feel like I'm reading the Salt Lake Tribune when i read your posts. You really do have problems with Mormons.
As a non-LDS member, their religion never came into to play in my decision to vote for them. I voted for them because they were conservative.
You really do have problems with Mormons.
- - - - -
No, I really don’t. Several of my friends are LDS. I feel sorry for them, I witness to them and I minister to those who are in the process of leaving and becoming Christians. I help with their transition to Christianity through a discipleship program that takes into account LDS beliefs and culture as well as the issues related to leaving.
It wasn’t an issue for YOU, and that is good, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue for most LDS (esp the active temple Mormons that make up so much of Utah). They tend to vote for LDS over non-LDS. I no longer live in Utah so I couldn’t say how many non-LDS lost. My interest in if they are LDS or not and their districting would be to see if the non-LDS legislatures come from lower LDS per capita areas (like SLC vs. Provo).
That being said, I'm still trying to figure out what your purpose was for feeling the need to tell us the religious faiths of Lee, Chaffetz, and Bishop? I referenced those names to another poster last night to make the point that Utah was indeed conservative. OK, so I'll ask again; you seem to have a problem that these conservative (LDS) men were elected; who were the non-LDS candidates that didn't get the vote? I'm really itching to know so i can make my next vote based on the other persons religion. That seems to be what you're advocating.
For a person who doesn't live here, and a Christian to boot, you seem really good at being able to judge the motives of an entire state's voting population. Sorry, but there was absolutely NO need for you to make the religion of these three men an issue. If you're going to apply this standard to the LDS, you should equally apply it to all other religions, sexes, groups etc.
I’m really itching to know so i can make my next vote based on the other persons religion. That seems to be what you’re advocating.
- - - - -
That isn’t what I am advocating, but it is how Utah politics work. This whole time I have been arguing that the LDS vote for LDS over anything else (including conservative) which is why Mitt will carry Utah. My point in stating the religion of those 3 is that they may have one over a more moderate Mormon but a more moderate Mormon would have won over a ‘gentile’ (non-LDS). For the LDS, religion is first in Utah (Zion) then where they fall in the political spectrum.
I lived in Utah for several years, and I was LDS when I lived there. I understand how Utah politics works and I saw the almost knee jerk response in voting for LDS over non-LDS in every election. For you, it is about being conservative, for the LDS it is first about being LDS and especially when so many of them see (and I still have many many LDS friends in Utah and quite a few ex-LDS friends as well) a chance to make the LDS church ‘look good’ by having an LDS president and fulfill a supposed prophecy by Joseph Smith to boot. Those are the reasons that Utah will go for Mitt regardless of Palin entering or not.
OK, I appreciate your perspective and helping me to understand your point.
I guess all either of us can do is to hope that the LDS members will vote who’s best for the country and not who’s a member of their faith.
I really did enjoy this exchange with you. I hope I wasn’t too brash ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.