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...

[glorgau]

Be sure to read the whole article; some excellent points are made near the end.

I stopped at the "would not vote for a Mormon" line and said to myself "excellent article".

[Pining_4_TX]

I’m with you, Race.

[RaceBannon]

In the writings of your original leaders, who claimed it as GOSPEL

You guys need to get off the mantra that since it isn’t in the book of Mormon that it was never said.

Besides, Paul in Galatians says the entire book of Mormon is from Satan and is to be accursed.

[tantiboh]

Yes, that appears to be the article referenced in the piece.

http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/romney-and-the-mormon-question-2007-07-25.html

[tantiboh]

I have requested that this thread not veer into the quirks of Mormonism. There are plenty of other threads on which to beat that particular horse.

Please stick to the political ramifications of Romney’s religion.

I also request others on the thread to not take the bait when a religious basher attempts to hijack the thread.

I’m sick of defending my faith every time Romney’s name comes up in conjunction with the word “religion.” The article provides a political analysis, and I posted it because I want to have a political discussion.

Thank you for your courtesy.

[muawiyah]

Mormons are not a problem provided they make a firm pledge to adhere to my Right To Life standards and not their tradition of waiting around for later ensoulment.

Seems to be that ought to be enough ~ BTW, Senator Hatch has "strayed" at times because he adheres to the Mormon doctrines on the matter and scoffs at those of traditional Christians.

I am sure that he could explain the whole business if he would join this thread.

[muawiyah]

Hmmm ~ how about a Quaker? Would you vote for a Quaker ~ they have strange beliefs ~ definitely not Christian ones ~ more like Moroccan Sufis in fact.

[tantiboh]

~”The best thing a romney candidacy would have going for
it is a run against hillary.”~

I agree; Clinton would be a superlatively effective unifying force.

I suppose the question boils down to this: Romney is, by all objective standards, an exciting candidate. Leaving the primaries aside, will his personal appeal win him more votes than are lost by his religion in the general election? Secondly, will those leery of his religion -tend- to grow to appreciate his redeeming characteristics? Is it feasible that as people grow to like the -man- they will be able to overlook the religion?

I think it’s all quite possible. But, then, I have been known to be overoptimistic.

What, then, do you think? Are you fully convinced that there is no way Romney could reclaim 3 of those 5% that you cite, or sway enough moderates to his side to make up for it?

[tantiboh]

So you are both agreed that it would be destructive for Romney to be president because it would lend legitimacy to a belief system you find offensive.

Fair enough.

a.) How many people agree with you sufficiently to take the chance of Clinton winning?
b.) Would you concede that your position is coloring your perception of Romney’s chances in the general?

[muawiyah]

Uh, gotta' laugh at that one. If it were between Hillary and a Mormon, you'd vote for who?

There are no real third parties, so what you are saying is you'd accept Hillary winning because you'd rather not elect a Mormon Republican.

Frankly, I'd rather have a Mormon Republican than any Democrat! In fact, I'd make every effort necessary to vote multiple times to make it so.

Now, if it's a choice between a Mormon Republican and a New York Republican, the Mormon is going to win that one too ~ maybe even if it's a South Carolina Republican. That's because I understand why the Mormon is going to do strange RINO-like things, but not why a RINO without religious roots (outside of Episcopaleanism) is going to anything. RINOs are too strange to be figured out, so you are always safer with a Republican who is some other kind.

[Utah Girl]

Sorry about that, I went to the article and didn’t find the link. My bad...

[muawiyah]

Bill Clinton’s forebears and mine were on those trails long before the Mormons. They may have done a bit of improvement later on of course, but they didn’t find Salt Lake first!

[tantiboh]

~”In fact, I’d make every effort necessary to vote multiple times to make it so.”~

Careful, you’ll tip off the good folks at DU as to our Master Plan...

[muawiyah]

I think the reference may well be to Moslems who have similar traditional beliefs that are reflected in the Hadiths. I don’t recall such things in the Book of Mormon, etc. That doesn’t mean there aren’t exogenous sources that claim such things, or that there aren’t any Mormons of some kind that don’t believe these things.

[tantiboh]

That’s it. Ready the firing squad.

[nowandlater]

It is intellectually dishonest to compare a Mormon to a Muslim or a Satanist or someone who lacks intelligence (even Republicans say Al Qaeda does not lack intelligence but lack morality — So in the view of some, Mormons are worse than Al Qaeda because they are immoral AND are stupid!) Can we drop that type of smear and dishonest reasoning?

Mormons claim Jesus Christ for their salvation. The claim that there are three unique personages in the Godhead who are one in purpose. Because they formulate God differently then the traditional Trinity doctrine (a minority opinion created in 325 A.D. amongst various different theories about God held by early Christians at that time), they are viewed as heretical.

Bottom line, Mormons vigorously declare that their moral framework center around the teachings and life of Jesus Christ.

I find it curious that 9th command says not to bear false witness against your brother. So I take it that God is saying to tread lightly, thoughtfully, thoroughly, and outright truthfully when you wish to characterize someone who is outside of your point of view. Unfortunately, I see that those outside the Mormon faith, engage in breaking the 9th commandment (probably through ignorance) frequently when they eagerly communicate to others what Mormons believe when in fact it is usually a distortion of their beliefs. Didn’t God emphasize not to do this? How come God standard is disregard when it comes to Mormons?

[Homeschoolmom]

a.) How many people agree with you sufficiently to take the chance of Clinton winning?
I’ve heard Christian talk show hosts (on Christian radio) and read blogs that state the same concerns that I have. They would rather see a Democrat win than give legitimacy to a false religion. For us, the higher and more important issue is an eternal one.

b.) Would you concede that your position is coloring your perception of Romney’s chances in the general?
I haven’t really stated my beliefs about his chances for winning the election. I believe that the problems with his inconsistencies on the important issues is just as troubling to main-stream conservatives, and thus will ruin his chances of winning the primary.

[tantiboh]

They actually did blaze the trail into the Salt Lake Basin, interestingly enough; the existing trails simply went around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wpdms_california_trail3.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oregontrail_1907.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mormon_Trail_3.png

[muawiyah]

Yes, the “vote early and often” plan. It worked for FDR, it’ll work for us.

[RaceBannon]

Quakers dont believe God is a man who lives on his own planet and if I am cool enough, I can get a planet too

nor do Qualers believe that Me, You, Satan, and Jesus are LITERALLY brothers...

talk about a kooky religion!~