Finding Truth in the “Would Not Vote for a Mormon” Polls

RomneyExperience.com ^ | 7/26/07

[tantiboh]

Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:

In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.

[snip]

Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.

[snip]

However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...

[Elsie]

There you go again putting words where they don’t belong and the hip boots help me wade through this doo doo

 

			Innocence Abused guards her purity jealously and cannot countenance crude language and gets the vapors over frank references to intimate bodily functions. This digital ingénue is a very weak Warrior, and is a favorite target of Enfant Provocateur, Jerk, Troller, Evil Clown, but Innocence Abused can always count on other Warriors, such as, Cyber Sisters, Weenie and , Toxic Granny, to come to her defense.

[Elsie]

There you go again putting words where they don’t belong ...

Then here is YOUR chance to put words Holy, Scriptural ones where they DO belong!!

Namely...

"The Authority the LDS organization has for our Temple rites is found here --> [fill in the blank] <-- in our Holy Scriptures."

[restornu]

It is amazing that a Bliss Ninny is able to push a
pugnacious Warriors into a frenzy of aggression,
one mind numb robot vs another mind numb robot!

[MHGinTN]

Careful, Elsie, you don't know which poster is freesponding when you get on these Mormonism threads:

[tantiboh]

~”Surely God is impressed.”~

Oh, I doubt that. But it keeps me entertained.

It does marvel me that you consider spin those ideas that I present which I consider to be good points.

It makes me wonder what I’m doing wrong. But not for very long.

[tantiboh]

~”It takes little effort to cut and paste. Far better
for all of us to actually reflect and interact with
information based on thinking.

I see it on both sides, incidentally. I do agree though
that once we go over more than a screenful - and it goes
on and on - I tune it out.”~

I agree. Both sides are guilty, and it accomplishes nothing. I also react by scrolling right past it, regardless of the source. Generally, I think the practice of massive copy-pasting is rather rude.

[tantiboh]

~”There is a difference between picking someone
for a cabinet without regard to their religious
preference... and starting out with their
religious preference.”~

That’s true, AMPU. My question is, do you have reason to believe that Romney would be any different in this respect from Reagan? Some here seem to be making that assumption, and it puzzles me, particularly given Romney’s record as governor.

Frankly, I think he would be so shy of being criticized on this point that he would tend to steer clear of Mormon appointees.

[tantiboh]

~”An incredible, amazing statistic.”~

It is, and you do seem particularly fond of it.

I don’t accept the premise behind those numbers. The polls you cite are nine months old, and there’s been a great deal of time for the electorate to get to know Romney as a person. Also, the pollsters weren’t even professional enough to spell check their document - “Morman” is not a word. That doesn’t speak well to their polling methods.

I would be far more interested to see how the numbers look in a few weeks, if Romney decides to give the “Mormon Speech.” I think the numbers you cite, even if accurate, are badly outdated.

For those who are curious, this is the data to which AMPU and I refer:
http://legacy.rasmussenreports.com/MembersOnly/2006%20Dailies/November%202006/Nov%2015-16%20%28importance%20of%20faith%29.htm

[tantiboh]

~”Have you viewed the Rasmussen study?”~

Rameumptom, the data to which AMPU refers are found in the link in my above post.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

tant,

I don’t know him well enough to venture a guess.
Perhaps someone like CC, who knows and lives in
mormonland could comment. I will observe that
there has been a lot of mormon payolla flowing
back to Utah from his campaign...

... and unlike Mass, it is expected that your cabinet will
be from outside your state.

... and Mitt is no Reagan.

best,
ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I am not fond of it. I’m trying to get someone
to actually discuss the Thread Topic... :-)

And explain it.

And there is no premise involved. It was a simple
question.

Sure, it will be interesting to see if it is updated.
Since we are waiting, what will you think if it is
unchanged???

Maybe the failure of the pollsters to spellcheck mormon is
a further sign....

PS - no one knows romney now compared to 9 months ago. That
is, at this point without evidence, and simply an opinion.

PPS - The only demographic group that will count on this
is evangelical Christians (a group very sensitive to cults).
If mitt loses 5% or more, he’s toast in the general election.
Which I believe would happen. This is why we have to do
everything we can to derail his candidacy.

[tantiboh]

~”This is why we have to do
everything we can to derail his candidacy.”~

OK, that’s fair.

Let’s move forward a year under the hypothetical that he is nominated.

You note that many traditional Christians will not vote for him. You further state that you are among that group.

Can it be said, therefore, that you intend, in this hypothetical, to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution, even if the result is Clinton as the victor?

I am interested in your answer; but, given our past correspondence, my guess is that the answer is yes.

Frankly, a year from now, I wouldn’t believe you. Hillary Clinton is a sufficiently divisive and threatening prospect that I think the conservative base will flock to the polls regardless of who her opposition is. It will redefine the term “negative turnout.”

My opinion of course; I’m happy to wait and see if it’s an accurate prediction.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

tant,

If mitt wins the nomination, I will wash my hands
of him and the party this go round. I will vote third
party or go fishing... knowing he will lose anyway.

ampu

[Elsie]

~”It takes little effort to cut and paste... unless one is trying to cut & paste the Scriptural Authority for the LDS organization's Temple Rites.

It apparently takes a direct invervention by GOD Himself to get this simple feat accomplished!!

[Elsie]

I’m trying to get someone to actually discuss the Thread Topic... :-)

That would be a LOT easier than getting an LDS organization member with a current Temple Recommend to show just WHY they jumped thru all the hoops to get it!

Obviously there is NO scriptural authority for it, or we mere Gentiles could find it by looking in the BoM, PGP, D&C's, etal.

[restornu]

So you aMorePerfectUnion are on record as being hostile towards LDS and believe they would cheat and do payola to win!

You have no proof but your strong hate toward LDS aka Mormons says it has to be so!

[Elsie]

You have no proof but your strong hate toward LDS aka Mormons says it has to be so!

MOTIVE!!!

[Elsie]

			The most common variants of Ideologue are conservative and liberal. There are also Religious versions: Christians vs Mormon Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologue's opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits, and he is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating.

[restornu]

Oh please he has stated it over and over on these threads and other threads his contempt for the Church this is a fact.

Who do you think the Church is made up of Catholics?

It is made up of LDS it is a marriage you can’t separate!

When one is accusing the Church of payola it would be the people to who is being maligned.

[Elsie]

Oh please he has stated it over and over on these threads and other threads his contempt for the Church this is a fact.

The LDS organization has no Scriptural basis for the things they do in their Temple.

This is a fact!