Well, we have a Black President for whom 98% of the Black voted for as a “block”. Conservatives vote as a block. Liberals vote as a block. Gays vote as a block. Pro-choice and Pro-Lifers vote as a block. Environmentalist wackos vote as a block. Thanks to “block” voting, we now have the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louie Farrakhan having open access to the Marxist Muslim in the White House. Now, what was your point?
The point, which you demonstrate quite well, is that average voters are more likely to vote for someone who they can identify with, rather than against a candidate who they feel no connection to. This is how bloc voting works.
The fact conservatives, Christians, gun owners, pro-lifers, rural conservatives and the middle class don’t identify with Romney gives Obama a big edge.
You're completely mixing up ideology and positions, which people SHOULD vote on, with ethnicity, which should have nothing to do with someone's vote, unless you're a bigot for your own "kind."
My point was clear. I was saying that if Mormons are voting 98% for the Mormon candidate, then Mormons must see themselves as different from other Christians, even though they claim they're just a mainstream Christian religion like every other one.
Of your examples, people SHOULD vote on the below, what else would you vote on if not the issues and policies you want the government to enact? These have nothing to do with race or gender. Of course some of these tie in with religious values, but that gets to my point. If Mormons have the same religious values as regular Christians, why do they all seem to think the Mormon candidate is so much better? Mormons must not have the same values as Catholics or evangelicals if those candidates are less acceptable than the Mormon.
conservative
liberal
pro-choice
pro-life
environmentalist wacko