[Dr. Sivana]

I'm not from the south, nor am I a Baptist. I'm not sure how being a Mormon is that much worse (even on a theolgical level) than being a functional atheist (numerous presidents), formally Unitarian (which is considered non-Christian by Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals) and even one whose background was Jehovah's Witness (Eisenhower).

There have been presidents who have been Methodists and Masons simultaneously (Masonry and Mormonism share the fact that they have a fair amount of esoteric teachings).

I won't rule out the possibility that they just won't vote, which at very least will affect close down-ticket races. Giuliani and Mrs. Clinton both have the ability to drive down turnout from their own parties.

If what you say is right, then Romney has no upside potential in the southern primaries. When the field is further thinned, the votes will go to everybody except Romney, and I believe Giuliani.

Oddly, Huckabee seems to play better here in the rust belt than in the deep south.

[BillyBoy]

>> I'm not from the south, nor am I a Baptist. I'm not sure how being a Mormon is that much worse (even on a theolgical level) than being a functional atheist (numerous presidents), formally Unitarian (which is considered non-Christian by Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals) <<

I agree. Considering we elected four Unitarian Presidents, I don't think the Mormon issue will play much of a factor. Do all the freepers who claim Romney will lose the south because the Mormon issue honestly believe Alabama, South Carolina will think "geez whiz, there's a Mormon the ballot, so let's all switch all voters to Hillary"? Come on.

There are a lot of conservatives who do not accept Mormonism as a true Christian religion, and a lot of those same conservatives will still have no problem voting for Romney over the Hilderbeast (I count myself in those caterogies) because we are electing a President to govern this nation, not to decide spirtual matters.

Unitarians outright deny the divinity of Christ, yet claim to be a "Christian" church. Many of them don't even pratice baptism or communion, or accept the bible. And yet we elected four of them President, during times where Americans were much more devoutly Christian than today. Back in 1908, you didn't see Republican voters sit out the election because a Unitarian, William Howard Taft, was the nominee. Taft was a conservative Republican and Bryan was a liberal Democrats. Conservatives supported the conservative. Period.

America has elected at least half a dozen Presidents who wouldn't traditionally be considered "Christian", and will do so again.