Posted on 02/10/2008 9:37:21 AM PST by Utah Binger
You may be right about four years from now but only if Romney could figure out how to get over this Mormon thing as I did. He managed to get over abortion and gay marriage. All he has to do is flip on Mormonism and he’ll be in!
Your tagline is right on!
I’m writing in Mark Levin, my favorite Jew, a man of my own distant heritage clouded by a 150 year stretch of Mormonism and all the other stuff in between.
I’ll put Sowell in as the Veep.
Don't think so...unless you can take out a loan on your home, loan yourself the money for your campaign, charge interest on the loan and then deduct the interest?
Here:
Get a little bored, all snowed in up there, did you? ;)
CC was here yesterday for about four hours with her sister. We sat around and drank coffee if you can imagine that. Great times with her. She’s a blast!
Today, dear wife left to go to a meeting in SLC so I’m all alone with my friend Vodka and girlfriend Bloody Mary. I can’t think of doing anything else on a Sunday except getting a load on and going out to FR.
Rum huh? I guess I need to make a run to the Buckskin in Fredonia. Can’t now though as I have already had one Mary. These southern Utah cops are viscous.
There are those who will never get over his Mormonism, but they probably have plenty of other hang-ups. I see it as an advantage if he plays it right. I’m also sure a lot of people voted for McCain because he was familiar and next-in-line. Romney has a real chance to spend the next four years being like Newt (without the personal baggage) and getting a book or two out and being on the speaking circuit. He could be a heck of a fund raiser for other candidates.
I didn’t even see the “rum” in my little cut and paste. Do you still have quite a lot of snow? CC hasn’t been online for a few days, out gallivantin’ around with good lookin’ men, I see.
BTW, daughter’s boyfriend found out how bad those AZ cops are on a little drinking. Learned a good lesson.
I see the tequila, triple sec and lime juice got left out of my post....and I haven’t even had a beer!
“viscous”, A new approach to modern language meaning mean and angry. Formerly meant “of a glutinous nature”. Stay with me here
folks, the Vodka hasn’t had any affect yet.
I wasn't going to say anything, but now you brought it up I was certain that you were indeed in the bag.
And yes we had almost two feet of snow. CC fought it trying to get out of here yesterday.
Right now though it is almost 55 degrees and the snow goes fast as you know in the high desert.
I have trouble with that “next in line” mentality. In my world “best in line” should be the tag.
I wasn't going to say anything, but now you brought it up I was certain that you were indeed in the bag.
Meanwhile a candidate whose campaign said that Reaganism is dead, who apologized to Pakistan, who said our foreign policy was too arrogant, won most of the states in the Southeastern quadrant of the country.
Just amazing! We really need to figure out the process in a better way. Possibly a new approach would be to have all the primaries on one day and not allow the applicants to register until a week before with totally free media. Outlaw all advertising but let the top twenty in the primaries have a week of debates and then another vote. Top vote getter is the guy.
Just a thought.
LOL
Then why don’t you answer the question nobody yet has been able to answer:
If Mormonism is not a cult, then what is, and why?
Well, yes I said "3% of conservatives" when I should have said "3% of eligible citizens" (who happen to be conservatives). It would indeed be as you guestimated, about 9% of all conservatives. But it's only 3% of all overall eligible citizens. My point was why go on the constant attack against 3% of all such citizens when...
(1)...the percentage of liberals and moderates is higher--4% of overall pool of potential voters and 11-12% of their own categories?
(2)...LDS voters constitute 2% of the population and this year probably constituted at least 3% of the GOP vote. (LDS are a higher % of the GOP than their population % of 2%...certainly that number is diluted a bit since some LDS are Democrats & some are Independents & may not have been eligible to vote in a GOP primary).
IOW, the 3% of overall citizens who happened to be conservative who didn't vote for an LDS POTUS candidate for that reason was certainly offset by the 3%+ of GOP voters who happen to be LDS who did vote for Romney for "personal qualities" reasons--meaning the LDS connection.
Furthermore, most of these polls simply identify potential (eligible) voters--not likely voters. Given that 40 percent of folks don't even turn out to vote in a presidential general election--please note that this % of no-shows is even higher in a primary...so, you accusers need to take another look at the stats: For every 100 eligible citizens contacted, 3 said "Yes I'm a conservative" plus they said "No, I wouldn't vote for an LDS POTUS candidate." So how many of these 3 then went & voted in a GOP primary? Probably only one (Not only do 60% or more usually not turn out to vote in a primary, but not every "conservative" is GOP to begin with. Some are independent; some Catholic conservatives especially are Democrat.)
If you still wonder how I did the math to come up with the original 3% figure (of all overall citizens), take a look: Let's say we have 100 voters as part of the sample (of course the sample was larger than this but this is an example). Let's say we take an equal number of splits: 33 are conservative; 34 are moderate; 33 are liberal. Eleven of them (accumulatively) exist--some conservative, some moderate, some liberal--that say they won't vote for an LDS POTUS candidate.
So the basic question is: how many of these 11 voters are likely to fall into each category? Well, if you're going to correspond to the poll to show that the "conservative" category is smaller than the other two, the number of voters out of 11 who are "conservative" HAS to be three. And since we know moderates have the most who won't vote for such a candidate--but since it's only a 2% difference than liberals, then in a sample of 100, the number of moderates and liberals will each be 4 (out of 100 overall voters).
While you ask that other person the above question, I have one for you. Would you vote for a Mormon candidate?
See comment #9.
(Which is what started the emoting and all.)
I voted for him on Tuesday then he dropped out. He was my 3rd or 4th choice. His religion had nothing to do with me voting for him.
Harry Reid is a Mormom and I would never vote for him. He’s a loon, regardless of his religion.
How many mormons voted for a non-mormon candidate for POTUS in the primaries? Seems to me the majority of Mormons voted for Romney, just like tons of blacks are voting for Obama without even knowing what he stands for, and many women are voting for hillary because she’s a woman. And evangelicals are voting for Huckabee. Interesting.
We’re screwed.
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.