Posted on 06/22/2012 5:12:13 AM PDT by Colofornian
Mitt Romney faces an anti-Mormon bias just as strong as the one his father confronted during his own presidential run more than four decades ago, according to a Gallup poll.
Eighteen percent of Americans say that if their political party nominated “a generally well qualified person for president who happened to be Mormon,” they would not vote for that candidate. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, is a devout Mormon who once presided over the church’s Boston stake.
When Gallup asked the same question in 1967, during George Romney’s bid for the White House, 17 percent of Americans said they would refuse to vote for a Mormon.
“The stability of resistance to a Mormon presidential candidate over the past 45 years is an anomaly, given that resistance to a candidate who is black, a woman or Jewish has declined substantially over the same period of time,” Gallup Poll Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport wrote in a press release announcing the survey results.
The electoral significance of a lingering anti-Mormon bias is unclear because only 57 percent of Americans even know that Romney is a Mormon, according to the poll.
“This suggests the possibility that as Romney’s faith becomes better known this summer and fall, it could become more of a negative factor -- given that those who resist the idea of a Mormon president will in theory become more likely to realize that Romney is a Mormon as the campaign unfolds,” Newport said. “That things will actually work out this way, however, is far from clear.”
Democrats, who are unlikely to vote for Romney anyway, oppose a Mormon president at a much higher rate than Republicans, 24 percent to 10 percent. Opposition among independents stands at 18 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Good question...
Actually, Jeffress lives in Texas. Believe me, if Jeffress voted third party, Romney wouldn't miss his vote.
Or if ALL of Jeffress' church members voted third party, Romney still wouldn't miss tthose votes (he'd still win Texas).
Or, if ALL of Jeffress' residents in which he lives voted third party, Romney still wouldn't miss those votes (He'd still win Texas).
You get my drift?
IF pragmatic utilitarian political relativism works well enough to vote for Romney, then in every NON-SWING state, it works well enough to vote Third-Party!!!
If you subtract 100% of FREEPER votes in conservative states -- and don't give those votes to Obama, either (they vote third party) -- Romney STILL wins all those conservative states!
In an electoral state-by-state system, there is NO principled reason for FREEPERs to vote for Romney beyond swing states -- using pragmatic utilitarian political relativism with a conservative twist, that is!
Romney will still win the conservative states minus any given FREEPER's help; and Obama will still win the liberal states minus all the conservative and independent votes you can possibly round up!
If FREEPERS were true consistent conservatives, they would ONLY vie for Romney to win votes in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and similar swing states.
The fact that they don't consistently practice the pragmatic utilitarian political relativist ethic they build their public ethics upon shows they are indeed at their core relativists -- vs. principled conservatives with a political relativist tinge.
Boo Hoo. If Bishop Romney can't stand the heat tell him to get out the h**l out of the kitchen.
Bishop Romney knew what he was going up against before he spent tens of millions in the primaries to get this far, so tough turkey if it's uncomfortable for him or his supporters. Whatever hits him it won't be any worse than what would be thrown at any Catholic who was the nominee and I bet some of the whiners would be in the front ranks of the "anti-Papist" propaganda crowd.
With only his track record as Governor of California to look at, we could have said the same thing about Reagan 32 years ago. In fact, many conservatives in June of 1980 did say this.
I expected to see a parentheses with “(Free Republic Mentioned)” after the article title.
LOL! My sentiments exactly. Also, there is so little difference in the positions of Obama and Romney on the issues (both big-government, socially liberal, nanny-staters) that there’s no incentive to take the risk in voting for another member of a flaky cult.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Capitalist Mormon or Communist Muslim? Is there really a choice?
What’s ironic is I recall a couple of this group identified themselves as Pentecostal, which is considered a cult by many mainstream Christian denominations.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/fundamentalists/fund60.html
“The rest of us will hate them for selling their country out by being ignorant bigots.”
Ah, another hater. And since you believe your view is better, a bigot to boot.
This freedom thing is complicated, but of course, you have the right to hate.
Well, then, I guess we might as well throw in the powel and prepare for the inevitable Obama landslide.
“You get my drift?”
I think that is reasonable argument as well, as long as one qualifies it like you have. Most that I have see seem to say something like “I will never vote for a Mormon.” But I doubt pastor Jeffress was being so politically and electorally aware in his statements. No one was using that argument on those threads that I recall, least of all the pastor who was actually making the statements about voting or not voting based on being LDS, not being liberal or conservative.
So if one votes third party in a swing state in protest to Romney, that would be detrimental to the conservative cause? And to vote for Romney in a ‘pub shoo-in state is likewise detrimental?
Freegards
Yeah I came to a similar conclusion. We have a non-Christian who hates this country and is inept, and we have a non-Christian who would like this country to do well, and appears less inept than the America-hater. Do both suck in multiple areas? Yes. Does the America hater suck in more ways and areas than the other guy? Yes, in far more areas, 100% opposed to anything he does or says. Would they govern identically? No. Does one appear to have the capacity to make better decisions given their views on the country? Probably. Would a 2nd-term lame-duck America hater be better than a first term guy who has no ill will towards the country, and would like a second term? No.
Better to vote against both of them.
Well, there’s aliens and then there’s aliens. Someone who truly thinks that someday he will be worshipped as God on his own personal planet is in a different class than a mere illegal alien. Obama is not our real problem. He’s a pawn. Soros, and the darker shadows behind him, they are our real enemy. We get rid of Obama, we’ll get a new problem, by design.
Have you ever played chess against a really brilliant opponent? The cleverer you try to be the worse it gets. They see you coming on any given attack path. The only way to win is to get back to fundamentals, because everyone, even the smart guys, are subject to the fundamentals.
One of those fundamentals is don’t get on the wrong side of God. You know, the Official Eternal Absolute Almighty, not some effete corporate climber like the Mormon god? Jesus told us not to be afraid of anybody, anybody at all. Except for Him. Blow off his blessing by throwing in with a mega-idolater whose life goal is to be worshipped on some alien world, and you’re looking at real trouble. We can deal with whoever the President is, if God is with us. Without God in our corner, not even Reagan could save us. We are that far into the game.
Funny. I became involved with politics with Goldwater and in 1967 I do not even remember George Romney. He must have been a major player.
Romney is a liberal not a moderate.
Romney doesn’t just have a different faith he belongs to an anti-Christian group.
It might serve you well to learn about mormonism before you defend it.
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.