CNN: 60% South Carolina voters say religion mattered, flipping results from Romney [Vanity]

Colofornian | Jan. 21, 2012 | Colofornian

[Colofornian]

Many GOP voters -- including some well-meaning Freepers -- keep attempting to lecture voters that Mitt Romney's Mormonism "doesn't matter."

Well, tell that to three of every five South Carolina primary voters who, according to CNN exit polls, said a candidate's religion mattered either "a great deal" or "somewhat."

Click EXIT POLLS: South Carolina for polling data.

Only 40 percent of South Carolina GOP voters said that the "Religious Beliefs of Candidates Matter... Not Much/Not at All"

Two-fifths of the "Not Much/Not at All" Crowd voted pro-Romney -- compared to...
...less than one-third of them voting for Gingrich...
...less than 1 in 8 for Paul...
...and less than 1 in 16 for Santorum.

BUT...of the "Great Deal/Somewhat" Voting bloc...Romney couldn't even beat Santorum...(20-22%)...while 46% of them voted for Gingrich!

80 percent of South Carolina GOP voters identified themselves as Protestants. Their vote breakdown was:
* 42% Gingrich;
* 27% Romney;
* 17% Santorum;
* 12% Paul.

13 percent of South Carolina voters identified themselves as Roman Catholic. Their vote breakdown was:
* 37% Gingrich;
* 29% Romney;
* 15% Santorum;
* 10% Paul.

When you split out the Evangelicals/born agains within the Protestant vote, they voted:
* 44% Gingrich;
* 22% Romney;
* 21% Santorum;
* 13% Paul.

For every Evangelical voting for Romney, one was voting for Santorum...and more than two were voting for Gingrich.

For those who might be tempted to reduce these South Carolina results to a "bigoted" Southern state, think again. A late 2006 Rasmussen poll -- Election 2008: 43% Would Never Vote for Mormon Candidate (Rasmussen Poll) -- revealed:

The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.

So…what percent of the following groups found that a candidate’s faith and religious beliefs are an important consideration for voting?
(1) Americans: 62%
(2) Evangelical Christians: 92%
(3) Republicans: 78%
(4) Minority Democrats 71%
(5) Democrats: 55% [still a majority]

If the other-worldly worldviews of a POTUS candidate doesn't phase your trust in their character, gullibility, level of discernment, etc...So be it. (It's a Free Republic)

But for those voters who do integrate such considerations amongst other criteria such as social issues' stances, candidate viability, scandal-free past, economic policies, and the like, this included dimension of religion describes a majority of voters!

[Nifster]

Have to agree..... I realize that it is chic for some to say that the Mormons are mainstream but I know better....As C.S. Lewis so aptly described in the Screwtape Letters, it is a different Jesus than the One I know and love and worship

[Tennessee Nana]

Their neighborhoods are probably saturated with Mormon door-to-door salesmen and women

I know when I lived there I got a visit once a month and then twice a month..

They know about Mormonism

When you know enough you dont call it genuine and part of typical presidential materials

its a big turn off

[50mm]

Myther moose-matson bites the dust.

To be added or removed from the Viking Kitty/ZOT Ping List, FReepmail Darkwing104 or 50mm.

[Arrowhead1952]

That second one was not banned. The flag is still showing. Look at humblegunner’s home page. They have fake banned or suspended pages.

[Old Sarge]

Not so much pro-Willard, but anti-Newt.

"He shoulda armed himself..."

[onyx]

WOO-HOO!

There’s a Sarah-hating, nasty, vile troll I am glad to see get the ZOT!

[onyx]

I am so happy to see that Sarah-hating, nasty, vile troll GONE!

[Earthdweller]

"Besides, he is off-limits to all those who take their marching orders from others here. "

Guess you just never understood the nature of cats did ya. Bye-bye.

[KC_Lion]

[terycarl]

BTW, I am not ‘anti-Catholic’, I do however have a degree in Medieval History focusing on death and disease in the Church.

taught by who?? based on whose opinions????did the course have am imprimatur from the church verifying the content as being true??? probably not.and yes, the church teaches the same things now that she has since the time of Christ. The church did not need "reformation", while there were, throughout history, bad people in the church, the church itself remained without error and does to this very day. The reformation that you mentioned resulted in over 20,000 various and sundry "denominations" all of which consider themselves correct. None are.

[reaganaut]

Wow Fail on all fronts. It wasn’t a course, it is a degree - big difference there.

The Catholic church needed reform, it is an evolving body whether you like it or not. Teachings like immaculate conception (not Virgin Birth) did not come in until the 18th century. The teaching of limbo - that just got thrown out pretty much. The entirety of Vatican II, the Catholic church - like all Christian churches changes and reforms.

FWIW, Reformation churches are not exclusivists like you claim and frankly neither is the Catholic church since Vatican II.