19 thoughts on “Mormon machine on the move”

  1. I’m trying to divine the meaning of your title—especially the “Can it be stopped?” part. Are you saying that Mitt Romney’s potential candidacy is dangerous and needs to be stopped?

  2. It’s an allusion to the fact that many conservative voters (particularly in the southern states) do not want a Mormon president.

  3. Kim Siever said: “It’s an allusion to the fact that many conservative voters (particularly in the southern states) do not want a Mormon president.”

    How do you know that? Where is the data to back up your statement?

  5. That shows how little you know about American Polictics. If Romney is the Republician choice, the evangelical’s would support him. What would hurt him is the Democrats have a large base of voters in the south.

    Romney vs Clinton. What a match.

    Both of them or too soon out of the gate running.

  6. “That shows how little you know about American Polictics (sic).”

    It has nothing to do with how much I know. I was simply paraphrasing the media.

  7. George, you’re claiming that if Romney got the nomination, the evangelicals would support him. First, the evangelicals aren’t a monolithic block; they’re individuals, some of whom would come over to Romney and some of whom wouldn’t. Large numbers of them would probably just avoid the polls. But the main problem is getting the nomination in the first place: The southern evangelicals are a strong force in the internal process that leads to a party nomination, and large numbers of them simply will never, ever have anything to do with a Mormon.

  8. >and large numbers of them simply will never, ever have anything to do with a Mormon.

    I’m not so sure. On second analysis, the parishoners might determine that the Mormon fables told by their religious leaders aren’t so accurate.

    Proof is in the pudding.

  9. “the parishoners might determine that the Mormon fables told by their religious leaders aren’t so accurate.”

    They haven’t done it in over 170 years. Why would they start now?

  10. Your statement is not true. I live in the Bible Belt and as the LDS population increases I am hearing from more and more Southern Baptists that they don’t believe in the myths being told about the LDS faith. In fact, the LDS Church works closely with the Southern Baptists in Texas in the larger cities (Austin, Dallas San Antonio and Houston).

    What makes you say that the attitude of parishoners of these religions has not changed in 170 years?

  12. Well if you are right, then someone had best inform these malcontents:

    Evangelicals for Mitt

    They obviously are not in sync with what they are supposed to be doing. Maybe because they didn’t have the internet 170 years ago, and forgot that they are supposed to be killing Mormons.

  13. Tortdog, I don’t deny that things are better now, and I don’t deny that many evangelicals are turning away from falsehoods about Latter-day Saints. I was just maintaining that there are still plenty of them who are so appalled at the idea of a Mormon President that their thinking will stop there. However, as you said, the proof is in the pudding.

    At this point, there is some proof in polling data which show that whereas the percentage of voters who say they would never vote for a Catholic has gone down and the percentage of voters who say they would never vote for a black candidate has gone down, the numbers who say the same about Mormons have remained fairly constant over the last few decades. I’ll see if I can find you a link…

  14. There was a straw poll in the South among the evangelicals and, if I recall correctly, Mitt Romney came in second place, topping McCain and another top Republican.

    I think that we’ve turned the corner.

  15. …Here’s a Washington Monthly article that cites the figures I mentioned but I don’t see an actual source reference to the studies: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html

    This one cites an LA Times poll showing the won’t-vote-for-a-Mormon crowd at an amazing 37%, though other polls show lower figures: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7971009

    This one cites a 1999 Zogby poll—probably the later poll referred to in the first article—showing a 17% refusal to consider voting Mormon: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4212788

  16. I hope you’re right about turning the corner—not just for the sake of Presidential politics.

  17. Boston Globe has been hitting this hard, positing that Romney won’t have a chance because of evangelists, which are a core part of the GOP base.

    The question is less what percent of the public won’t vote for a Mormon (what percent of the public won’t vote for a Republican?), it’s more whether the GOP BASE will refuse to vote for Romney. And THAT’S important because while the anti-Mormons might hold their noses and vote for Romney over Hillary Clinton, they wouldn’t have to in the GOP primary.

    That’s why the Globe’s position (evangelicals won’t vote for him) was important – Could Romney get past the GOP primary? But, like I said, Romney came in second only to Bill Frist in the straw poll among southerners.

    http://nationaljournal.com/srlc/

    If Romney can win the primaries (which coming in a strong second in the Bible Belt isn’t a bad showing), then he might be the ticket.

  18. Yes, that’s always the problem. You have to appeal to a hard core of one party in order to get that party’s nomination, before you can ever get the real chance to appeal directly to the electorate. It tends to foist less desirable candidates onto the ticket.

  19. I think the primary system is incredibly important. It allows me to get rid of people I disagree with at the primary level before I am forced to choose between someone I dislike and someone I can’t stand.

    I can more easily vote my conscience in the primary (and often vote against the incumbents in my primary).

Comments are closed.