Why Romney Lost: Part I
Believe it or not (and I didn’t think it possible), Mormonism was one reason Romney lost South Carolina. Exit polls show that most South Carolina voters wanted a candidate that shared similar religious views. Romney lost big among those voters. Note, I am not describing what ought to be, but rather what the data show is happening.
This does not bode well for Romney’s electability in the fall. Evangelicals are the base of the GOP. If they stay home, Republicans lose, like they did when they nominated the moderate John McCain. But more importantly, Catholics may decide this election in places like Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the Catholic Church makes no secret of its view of Mormonism. An unexcited evangelical base combined with skeptical moderate Catholic voters undermines Romney’s chief campaign message of the last month — “most likely to beat Obama.” It could be a prescription for a November defeat.
Romney will spin that Florida is his firewall because he has an organization there. But he also had one in South Carolina. Tonight was a game changer.
One other thing. Romney annoyed people in South Carolina. His robo calls, from the vaunted “organization,” annoyed voters to no end. I watched someone get 5 calls in one night, many from Chris Christie. Another person is getting them in Germany in the middle of the night on her cell phone. Sometimes organization and money backfires.
Also read Roger L. Simon: “Nobody’s Home at the Sanctum Santorum“
“It could be a prescription for a November defeat.”
If there is validity to the spin you put on the poll results, then it is a death knell for the myth of his “electability”.
Persons like myself who are strongly for constitutionally limited government and a fiscal conservative also have NO USE for Romney.
I keep on telling you idiots claiming he’s the guy that the 1/3rd to 1/4 of the party who say they’ll vote for him is the best he’ll get.
And at that it’s far more than he deserves.
Romney needs to get the tea party fever quick. If he does that it will go a long way to neutralizing the religion factor.
The establishment’s man can’t at this late date change his spots and claim he’ll change Washington. He won’t be credible and he’ll lose some establishment support.
What’s he gonna do? Repudiate Romneycare and have us believe him?
Flip flops belong on feet, not in the White House. And RINOs belong in the zoo.
Why is flip-flopping so evil? I wrote about that here: http://clarespark.com/2012/01/12/the-counter-culture-vs-the-establishment/. It is the candidates current views that count.
The bottom line for me is that Romney is a supporter of government run healthcare. That he believes it is only something the states should do and not the federal government is a difference without a distinction. It is also a position I believe would “evolve” if he were elected as the man has no demonstrable principles that extend beyond getting himself elected.
And if he wins the GOP nomination I will support his campaign against Obama in every way I can.
Excellent point . . . DITTOs!
He’s been faking Tea Party fever for two years now, just like he’s been faking conservative credentials. Take five keys issues: baby killing, the gay agenda, health mandates, “global warming,” and TARP. Romney supported them all in the recent past and Obama can remind voters of this during debates. How can Obama be a national menace if Romney wants shared his views Obots? will ask. If Romney takes the GOP nomination, we’ll lose worse than McCain in ’08.
Even if Mittens started saying all the right things from a Tea Party perspective do you really think anyone would believe him. More likely it would just assumed that its just what people want to hear to get elected, in other words more lies.
At this point Mittens has tried to change his spots so many times he must need someone to tell him every morning who he is pretending to be that day.
I’m surprised that religion played a factor… especially with Catholics and Jews doing so well in the GOP. Correlation doesn’t equate to causation, though. In this case, the voters who are most concerned with religion are also those who are among the hardest-core social and economic conservatives. These (along with the tea partiers) are precisely the ones who want a conservative alternative to Romney. Both the interest in a candidate of a similar religion and the distaste for an establishment moderate stem from the same common cause. So it might not be anti-Mormon hysteria.
It’s way too late for Mitt to tack right. It simply won’t be believed.
Romney’s problem is that he’s been trading on his inevitability forever. Much like Hillary, once the man behind the curtain is revealed, what’s left? Newt is a flawed candidate (so is Santorum, incidentally), but voters clearly prefer his flaws to Romney’s. If Newt picks up the next few states, it will be very hard for Mitt to come back. His last opportunity is later in the contest, when his opponents are spread thin and their warchests are running out.
Newt did indeed shred the media two days ago. I have never in my life seen a standing ovation at a republican debate. Well done , Newt. If we are going to lose, I prefer to lose leaving the other guy with a bloody nose and a fat lip , metaphorically speaking, rather than the gentlemanly way we lost the 2008 election. (Gee, I hope McCain didn’t muss his hair.)
As to the Mormon thing, the author has a point. During the last election, to my utter amazement, I heard several people at my church (NOT evangelical, traditionally religious, politically active,educated, conservative people who were scared to death of Obama) say they would not vote for a Mormon. I know it’s absolutely insane, but I believe it. I heard it with my own ears.
I hope they have changed their minds. At this point, if the Republicans run a peg -legged one- eyed Hindu pirate , they had better vote for him!
Here’s the problem:
1) Many Christian denominations have determined that the Mormon religion is not Christian. This is a theological decision made long ago by theologians, not merely an epithet thrown at the Romney camp. The Trinity is a key teaching of Christianity, and the LDS church doesn’t have it. Their baptism is also problematic, as well as the planet the men get after death. And Christians believe that post-apostolic writings are just not as important as Biblical writings. For some voters, this is enough-they don’t want to vote for a non-Christian. We Catholics have been long aware that some Protestants don’t consider us to be Christian, that that has to be taken into account when you’re adding up votes.
2) Non-Mormon Utahns are treated like second-class citizens so there is definitely a cause for concern as to Romney’s potential attitude. I don’t think there’s anything more to this than “is a cause for concern” but I wonder how many non-Mormons from Utah support Romney?
3) Mormon reaction to 1) is kind of cult-like, the way they throw temper tantrums and claim discrimination. (I have a little bit of experience with the Regnum Christi cult but am not a cult expert.) Also see ICSA and Rick Ross for more. I and many other voters could vote for a Jewish, Unitarian, Bahai, Mandean candidate, but balk at a cult member. Of course, both Catholic candidates have a slight link to the RC cult, so I’m not comfortable with them either.
“…get Tea Party fever”….?!?
And *you* would fall for it if he tried such a stunt?!?
Yeah, you probably would.
Romney is an outdated PolitiBot who cannot think for himself and constantly relies on polling-committees for not-so-well-rehearsed script lines. He can afford to buy all the dirty smear ad spots he wants, but he is incapable of convincing anyone he means a thing he says. He even comes off sounding guilty of his own wealth. So much for all that Massachusetts influence!
But I’ll bet you believed Romney when he said he was a “true conservative” too, huh?! There’s a sucker born every minute.
Agree completely. Romney can never win the evangelicals and socons, either Newt or Santorum has them. But if nominated, they will still vote for him because they passionately hate Obama (note in 2008 Obama was still an unknown quantity, now he is a known evil.) But Romneys support for free market capitalism, in contrast to Newt, could allow him to win Tea Partiers, if he just decides to seriously court them.
The only reason Mitt Romney adheres to the Mormon faith is because it promises him that someday he, too, can become a god.
Mitt Romney’s real religion is Mitt Romney.
We already have a narcissist in the White House. The last thing we need is another one.
Actually, Mitt should have been running in the Dem primary, and offering to debate Obama. Oh, wait…
Romney won’t get my vote because he’s a whimp! He is a whimp because he has no core of conviction and I really don’t think enjoying a good fight is in his belly. I want someone who will have fire in his gut and isn’t afraid to do what it takes to set this country back on it’s foundation. Everytime I turn on a light switch I remember exactly how Obama’s 21st Century Democrats are taking over our lives. I am tired of Obama using the poor as examples of why he should win. I was poor, I lived in a ghetto. Obama and the Democrats have worn out that “help the poor” thing. All one has to do, if you dare, is drive through a ghetto or a poor rural community…..AFTER 60 YEARS, ARE THEY BETTER? I only see one man on that stage with the historical knowledge, intelligence and nerves of steel to see this battle through. I will be voting for Newt Gingrich. I am a member of the Silent Majority. We spoke once and we will speak again in November and we really hate ROBO calls!
Nonsense. Gingrich won because voters saw him as the one person who is not afraid to take on the MSM-DNC complex head on and attack their politically correct leftist “religion”.
Romney is McCain redux. Picking a wimpy moderate did not work in ’08, and it will work even less now, with a Marxist incumbent and a media full of leftist apparatchik propagandists.
That was one kick-ass answer he gave to the pathetic Juan Williams in that one debate.
And his ritual disembowelling of that fool the other night sealed the deal.
The average voter has the attention span of a gnat. Newt seems to get the idea that to push the idiots’ buttons, one must become a reality TV show.
So far, he’s right on target. That stupid bitch from Jersey Shore should take lessons from him.
What’s her name…Spooky…Snoopy…who cares?
But show me how Gingrich wins a national election. He performs abysmally among independents, and head-to-head against Obama, even now, he comes up very short. Sure, he beats up on MSM reporters during elections, but show me how that wins him independents.
Like it or not, he’s unelectable come November. Completely. His baggage–political and personal–is the albatross around his neck, and the Democrats know it and are ready to exploit it. He’ll lose to an unbelievably unpopular incumbent.
Show me how he wins independents. Show me how polarizing Gingrich wins Pennsylvania, or purple Colorado, or Nevada. And don’t just say, “Oh, the winds in those states will definitely blow against Obama,” because against a polarizing opponent like Gingrich, they may not.
Like it or not, to beat Obama, you MUST win the political middle and unaffiliated voters. And sorry, but Gingrich is in no position to do that.
He’s been a widely despised figure consistently ever since the 1995 government shutdown. You can argue it is undeserved, but it was conservatives who ousted him when the old guard forgave his ethics transgressions.
People who think Obama OR the media will let Newt have several debates with long answers in the general are dreaming. The red meat to conservative audiences repels the independents and unaffiliated.
Obama’s only chance is to make the election about his challenger and NOT his record. Newt is the perfect foil.
So what if Obama runs away from debating Speaker Gingrich? Newt can buy an hour of TV time and debate Obama’s empty chair – with some video file footage of Obama, to give his side natch.
As for Newt’s marriage baggage, if it didn’t deter the married Republican women of South Carolina then it’s not going to bother anyone who hasn’t already drank the fatal glass of Obama Kool-Aid. Review what The Real Housewives of South Carolina have told Glenn Reynolds.
What it means is that the so-called “evangelicals” are selective about their religious bias. Mormon bad? Serial philanderer good? How does that religious math work?
“Independents” are mostly low-information voters who barely follow politics and who can’t tell one candidate or one party from another. They vote at random if they bother to vote at all.
It’s ridiculous to dilute the conservative message to appeal to them.
Spot on, 1389AD. I don’t expect the so-called “independents” – the largest voting bloc of rubes in 2008 – to forgive Obama. A big percentage of ‘em will probably stay home this year. But this time the leans-Democrat ones will be the bulk of the stay-at-homes, unlike in 2008 when the McCain independents sat the election out.
40% of today’s America is conservative, 20% is liberal. So if the “independents” stay home I’ll sleep well on election night knowing it’s bye-bye Obama and a bunch of Democrat Senators.
That’s a stupid attitude. Yes Independents are low-info voters. Do you want to win or not? Like it or not, the US is NOT a Center-Right country (or Obama would not have won). It is a LEFT country, which is why we don’t get borders enforced, have Affirmative Action, effective anti-White policies, spend most of our money on welfare (to non-Whites), are awash in political correctness, Multi-cultural jihads, and the like. This is reality.
Scott Brown is a RINO, but he’s better than the Democratic Alternative. To win you need to appeal to low info, FEMALE voters, mostly White professional women. Those are the ones who switch votes. And they so based mainly on hunk-factors, and approval from the Media. Scott Brown is the model, a guy who did not get media approval, but was hunky, dominant, clean-cut, tall, and “moderate” enough to win against the Democratic Machine. In MA.
I’m probably the most conservative person here. I’m so conservative its not even funny. And yes Mitt is a RINO, he’s not conservative, he’s a Mormon (major problem for non-Mormon guys), and so on. That’s what makes him appealing to White professional Women. Who like it or not, because they switch, pick Presidents.
Want to go on a suicide charge, because it feels good? Get Obama re-elected, just so you can bet it all on a guy who is known for corruption (his insider dealings as Speaker), RINO-ism (Nancy Pelosi, couch, Global Warming, open borders, Affirmative Action), stupidity (personal behavior), and the like?
He’s not Bill Clinton, who had the entire Media behind him and thus women. He’s the opposite of Clinton, same personal flaws (maybe larger) but with media and thus female-hatred.
Newt won because Dems crossed over big to vote for their preferred Opponent. [That's the Obama way, getting his mentor disqualified from the ballot and opening the Ryan Divorce records to run against Alan Keyes.] Plus disdain among Evangelicals for Mormonism. Newt’s married White women in South Carolina are absent almost all other states. Particularly big ones. Want to retain MAYBE South Carolina, and one other state, and cede the rest to Obama? Go ahead, pick Newt.
Yes it is not fair that women who watch E! and follow the Kardashians pick Presidents. But life rarely is. Either deal with reality or commit political suicide. Me I’ll take a somewhat moderate Democrat (Romney) over hard-left, anti-White Obama any day of the week.
@Steve
Independent does not equal moderate. Independents are mostly apolitical. They don’t understand the difference between socialism and capitalism. They are not interested in politics. They don’t read newspapers. They are more interested in pop culture and social status issues.
They vote for the most impressive looking person. And the only reason they vote is that it’s a big event. And they like to participate in current events and fads.
You erroneously place the Democrats and GOP at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The political middle is where the GOP currently is. Most independents aren’t between the GOP and the Democrats, but to the right of both. They’ve been abandoned by years of GOP moderation, and are longing for some Reagan style conservatism.
very well said.
My comment refers to 2. Eric R I do not know how it got down here.
Gingrich won because Sarah Palin told voters vote for Newt. They needed somewhere to go and Palin gave them a reason to go to Newt … in SC. In FL, she saying do what you want. Why? FL’s delegates won’t mean jack cuz the Establishment Elites will punish FL and she won’t expend political capital without result.
You must not be a coservative, as you obviously have a low opinion of us. Getting conservatives to agree on anything is impossible, even for Palin or Reagan. We’re all too independent-minded and mistrustful of each other.
Boww-wow! Arf, arf!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
I’ve said from the start that Mitt Romney is a born loser, I then go on to say like his father, who I guess I have confused with Harold Stassen.
I’d still rather have Mitt as president than someone who has had to work to achieve the rank of loser, Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm, but I’ve doubted from the first that that would ever be the choice.
Nobody really likes Mitt Romney … except for those who received a contribution from Mitt’s campaign in return for endorsing him.
And where did Mitt’s campaign get all that money in the first place? NOT all of it came from Mitt’s personal fortune. But some of that money is mighty hard to trace.
The Catholic Church makes no secret of its view of Mormonism.
But the Mormon Church does keep its inner workings secret; Tagiyya, perhaps ?
My outsider/unbeliever impression is that the Mormons take their religion even
more seriously than do Evangelicals.
But really, who cares? I know a lot of Mormons. They love their kids, spouses, etc. They would give me the shirt off their back if they knew I needed it.
Sure, they don’t drink coffee and have supernatural faith claims I disagree with, but they are healthy nuclear families. It’s not something worth being bothered about. Every church has it’s weird side if you look. Catholics, Methodists, etc.
Does Mormonism cross the threshold for where we start getting worried about it? Maybe the really bad strains, just like every other faith (such as that compound in the news a couple of years ago), but you could say the same for Rev Wright and baptists.
Those who are worried about Mormonism are seriously, seriously misguided. We should care about the limited role of government, taxes, foreign policy. How a man worships God is his own affair. Judge these politicians by their record.
I can’t stand Romney, but this is a terrible reason for folks to reject him.
Prohibiting alcohol is bad to begin with, but coffee? It’s as though the Mormon faith has declared war against human conviviality and the drinks that facilitate it. I see it as Islam-lite.
But again… so what? Alcohol and coffee are not illegal in Utah. There are some sales restrictions, but nothing more odious that many other places (ABC stores, no Sunday booze sales… you see those all over the States). Hate Mormons all you like, but I don’t think a case has been made that they are particularly interested in inflicting their views on others (legislatively speaking, that is).
IMHO, religion will influence some, but there is absolutely nothing to be done for that. Letting those that will vote against somebody because they are the ‘wrong’ religion influence YOUR vote is kind of creepy.
Not a Romney fan, by the way, but it has nothing to do with his faith.
That secret must be extremely well-kept!: I am a cradle-Catholic, many years of Catholic School and I have never, ever heard Mormonism mentioned by any Priest,Nun , teacher, fellow-Catholic in a negative way.Zip,zero,nada
I agree. I have never heard it, either and I wonder if that’s more historical- the Vatican II (1962) emphasis on ecumenical issues made it very clear that unity among all Christians is a goal for the Church- and loosely defined, Mormons are Christians. Indeed, there is a broadening of acceptance of MOST faiths as the Church realizes the real concern is atheism. So there might be some elderly Catholics who dislike Mormons, but that’s about it.
Let me put it this way- a Catholic might pick Gingrich over Romney, but if Romney gets the nod, there is no doubt in my mind that they’ll pick Romney over Obama. No doubt whatsoever.
“Loosely defined” indeed…the Catholic church does not accept Mormon as Christians in the same sense that they accept Baptists, Anglicans, etc., as Christian, for Mormons deny that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father. The Catholic church also denies that Mormon baptisms are valid sacraments.
That being said, I am a strict Catholic and I would vote for Romney over Obama. In a heartbeat, walking over broken glass.
you said:
“Mormons deny that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father.”
Yes we do. We just don’t believe in the Nicene Creed. We believe the trinity is comprised of three distinct Gods, one in purpose.
Mormon baptism is not recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. This is in stark contrast to every form of Protestantism, which does have valid baptism. In other words, the Church says that Protestants are Christians, but Mormons are not, because they neither have Trinitarian Baptism, nor believe that Jesus is the ever-living God.
Wrong. There are some Protestants who do not hew to the trinitarian form of baptism so the Catholic Church does not see their baptisms as either Christian, biblical, or valid.
Which Protestants are those, Micha? I really would like to know the answer, because I’ve never met a Protestant who didn’t believe in the Apostle’s Creed, even if some of them couldn’t recite it. I’ve met some agnostics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons who don’t believe that, and they are mostly nice people, but they don’t call themselves Protestants.
Anyone baptized in an established Protestant denomination who was baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” with water, is considered validly baptized, by the Catholic Church. If it was a house church, that believes in the Trinity, the person would be conditionally baptized (same thing if a Catholic receives an emergency baptism in the NICU etc) “just in case”. But a converting Mormon is not considered to be validly baptized so he or she will receive the Sacrament of Baptism before receiving any other Sacraments.
Again, “He isn’t Christian” is different from “He isn’t Christian so I won’t vote for him”. But
Romney. Isn’t. Christian.
no matter how many temper tantrums Mormons throw.
to myth buster
you said:
“the Church says that Protestants are Christians, but Mormons are not, because they neither have Trinitarian Baptism, nor believe that Jesus is the ever-living God.”
Yes we do believe that Jesus is the ever-living God. We also believe that he is Jehovah, God of the Old Testament; that he created the earth, and innumerable other worlds. See lds.org.
robm,
You’ll have to take it up with the Magisterium if you want the Catholic Church to consider you a Christian. Trinitarian Christians do not believe that God the Son came into being after God the Father, and do not believe that men also become gods after death. Mormonism, in our view, sees the Christian God as merely one god among many; this is polytheistic, pagan. As I noted elsewhere, “Mormons aren’t Christian” isn’t the same as “Mormons aren’t Christian therefore I won’t vote for Mitt Romney”. But
Mormons. Aren’t. Christian. from the Catholic and mainstream Protestant POV.
What kind of evangelical values-voter would have more problem with Mormonism than the philandering that Gingrich is charged with? This whole article makes very little sense.
A national survey from LifeWay Research, a Nashville-based Christian research agency, finds a candidate’s religious life is not a major motivating factor for five in six voters.
Kevin Kansas: check out the data in the Vanderbilt survey noted here. Unlike the pne you cite, that poll was not taken by any organization with an interest in the issue being studied:
http://www.article6blog.com/2012/01/20/south-carolina-the-anschluss-and-the-question/
Anonymous: Secrecy and Mormonism is kind of like financial acumen and Jews: an association bigots make.
Josh: you need to get out more.
Eric: if you think the jobs of the POTUS is to beat up on the news media, and many Republicans share your view, we are in deep trouble.
And Roger: Romney carried the Catholic vote big-time in Massachusetts. Knowledgeable conservative Catholics like Mormons. They know Proposition 8 in California would have lost without a strong Catholic-Mormon coalition.
Any successful Republican POTUS is going to have to work around the establishment culture including the MSM. Reagan was the last to be successful at that, perhaps Newt will in his own way. Perhaps … but between him and Romney it’s clear who’s more likely to succeed or even try.
The MSM of today is much more open in their hostility of the right than in Reagan’s day. Not that he couldn’t have handled these idiots of today. Newt is the master at handling the MSM.
That’s why you’re a perennial loser. You want a Republican POTUS to play nice and ‘stay above’ it all. I actually prefer Romney to Gingrich, but Gingrich looked tough when he went after the MSM and Romney looked weak in comparison. Romney can play nice WHEN he’s elected. Right now, he’s supposed to be campaigning. Stop apologizing for Bain Capital and go after Obama for all the stupid things he did the last three years.
My sentiments exactly. Romney needs to toughen up. I’m not a fan of Gingrich, but he has earned my respect this week, which is kind of hard to do given some of his history, including the infidelity.
Romney can play nice WHEN he’s elected.
I disagree. The leftists who rule the Democrat party aren’t going to go home and remain quiet once they’ve lost. (Ask Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush.) It’s going to be hardball politics for the next four years – minimum.
Newton Gingrich had doubters a-plenty who were sure the reigning Democrat majority in the House could not be beaten. But Newt kept at it for years and eventually succeeded. He knows what hardball politics is and doesn’t flinch from it. The cure for Obammunism is an American who fights. Newt’s credentials in that department are already well-vetted. Romney and Santorum – who knows?
Lowell,
The right cannot govern effectively until it emasculates the laughingly misnamed MSM, since the whole goal of the leftist legacy media is to advance Socialism and crush Republicans and conservatives everywhere, and crush Anglo-Saxon Capitalist culture.
California may be broke, but the leftist media elites still see it as a role model – a one party, irrdentist Marxist state that is so hostile to conservatives that it is deliberately creating legislation to drive them out, and to replace Anglo Saxon culture with a Mexican one.
The bottom line is that the MSM hates America, hates capitalism, hates Israel and hates democracy. Only by utterly destroying their credibility do Republicans have any chance of being effective.
We are limited to the choices we have. Newt IS electable. My DOG is electable against Obama. Romney is stuck at 30-40%. Ronulans may/may not vote in November and Paul will not get the nomination. Time to stop setting up talking points for the socialists.
What the hell kind of polls are you looking at? An unpopular Obama doesn’t automatically make Gingrich electable. In fact, head-to-head, he loses to Obama. Romney may have a chance (a slight chance) against Obama; Gingrich, unfortunately, has none.
An unpopular president can start looking pretty darn popular against an even more unpopular challenger.
If Obama does not have 50%, and no major third-party candidate is running, Gingrich (or whoever gets the nomination) will pick up enough undecideds to pull it off.
That’s not what polls say. Like it or not, Gingich loses to Obama in a landslide. Why?
Because White female professional voters abhor Newt, and will vote for Obama. Poll after poll after poll shows this. They’ve already made up their minds about Newt. They hate hate hate him. They really do.
And these voters turn out (women are more dutiful than men, and vote more often). Paul’s young guy crowd turns out very erratically, and he’s got a hard-core fanatic following like a cult but not broad support which is electoral victory.
Dems are chortling, and Pelosi is marking time till she returns as Speaker. Reid is planning a filibuster proof majority. Whoever held the mountain passes in Greece and later Switzerland held the land. It was small but vitally important. Same thing with White female professional voters. They are the critical terrain. Poll after poll after polls shows a huge margin for Obama against Gingrich, and margin of error against Romney.
You are basically betting your life, and your country, on the outcome. Obama is that bad. Thinking something does not make it so, nor does wishing. The voters are who they are.
If the evangelicals throw this election to Obama out of (stupid) hostility to Mormonism, they’re too stupid to live, and it’s time for a genuine third small-l libertarian, moral-but-nonsectarian, party.
If the people in the GOP decide not to jump off a cliff and nominate Romney, I’m glad they don’t.
I can live with why even if that’s why.
And voting for Romney is exactly that, voting to go off the same cliff the Democrats have been heading for for a 100 hundred years, with Wilson, then FDR, then Johnson, and then Obama whipping the horses on faster.
Romney is business as usual, that’s why he’s the establishment’s man.
It’s the same cliff.
And of course Gingrich isn’t an establishment guy, what with his decades in the House of Representatives. Nah, of course not, man of the people he is!
Never mind that he actually wrested control of the House away from the Establishment. What has Ron Paul done? Talked and voted for all the pork he could eat. ORomney? Came up with the blueprint for Obamacare and continues to love it.
Gingrich made an enemy of Washington and was attacked for it. And we didn’t have the new media as a counterweight.
No, he is not the establishment’s guy. That’s why they ousted him on fake ethics charges.
The ethics charges were hardly fake, and even if they were, it is proof that Newt cannot govern. That he’s a BAD politician. That he could not even hold together his own majority, when it counted. He remains the only Speaker indicted and convicted for ethics charges.
Either Newt was uniquely corrupt, or uniquely inept in holding together his coalition.
Want ObamaCare overturned? ANY bad Democratic measure defeated, and Republican ones sent to victory? Then you need a guy who is politically able. Able to hold together a majority, twist arms, and make things happen. Newt could not even evade ethics charges.
HE’s worse than Pelosi in that regard. A worse politician. He’s not very good, his record of failure is bigger than Romney’s. [Lost most of his elections.]
What a sore loser you are. Your guy lost and you’re throwing a tantrum. LOL.
I still believe Evangelicals hate Obama more than they dislike either Romney or Gingrich, and will vote accordingly. Hatred is a powerful motivator, and I doubt than any group hates Obama more than they.
This “hate” you write of: any data to back that up? Three years of Obama and I have yet to hear a single person say that they hate Obama. I’ve heard people say they hate the damage he has done and is doing to this country–I’ve heard him called names from playground level to scatological and profane, with slurs on his ancestry and his destination in eternity. But I cannot recall a single time hearing the word hate being directed at him.
Over the past decade the Left did publicly develop hatreds against political leaders on a personal level as a manner of manipulation from the top down. Let them deal in hatreds and the ugliness of their words and behavior will be showcased against the positive vision for the future of the United States that’s the promises of our guys. They sell hate for emotional appeal, and I think it is hard to keep Americans ginned to a high hate level. We have to sell hope, a chance for Americans to again think that their children will have a higher standard of living and that we Americans can be making that future in short order ourselves. With cheap energy and liberty there is no telling what benefits the poverty-stricken areas of Earth could receive–maybe even cheap energy and liberty for themselves. Make the whole world rich by making it free, a much better plan thsn hate.
I’m impressed. Three years, and you’ve never heard anybody say they hate President Obama. If you mean “in person,” then you need to run with a different crowd. If you mean “every in any forum whatsoever” you need to expand your internet horizons a little.
Okay, you don’t really “need” to… but I think it would take active denial to have never heard that phrase uttered or typed.
In case you don’t find it elsewhere: I hate President Obama.
– Catholics voted for Rick in South Carolina??
I suppose I can relax, or at least not fret, b/c Missouri’s “primary” has been neutered, not to be confused with Newtered. Our primary vote doesn’t count; Newt said he wasn’t even running here – funny, I hear plenty-o-commercials for him.
NOT VOTING FOR A MORMON , BECAUSE YOU’RE A PROTESTANT IS PURE BIGOTRY ….THAT’S RIGHT , I SAID IT …BIGOTRY ….AND YOU KNOW WHAT , I’M NOT A BIT SURPRISED ….I WILL NEVER GO VACATIONING IN SOUTH CAROLINA AGAIN…WHICH WAS SOMETHING THAT I ENJOYED DOING EVERY YEAR ..BUT NEVER AGAIN !!
What you’re saying is also bigotry. Instead, you need to meet some Christians who don’t mind voting for a mormon.
I think Romney lost for a combination of many factors -including also the christians not voting for Mormons, but that’s not THE defining only and unique factor.
Romney got the exact same percentage, he has been getting the hole time. It’s just that the field is smaller now. So his opponents each gets a higher percentage now.
There is a Romney segment at 25%, a non-Romney segment at 60% and a Ron Paul segment at 15%.
Until now the non-Romney segment has been shared by many different candidates.
If there is anti-mormon bigotry involved, Roger’s stats don’t prove it. See my post above for why– basically, the voters who care about religion are also the ones who are least likely to vote for an establishment type.
Also, see that button on your keyboard marked “caps lock”? Please press that. The internet thanks you.
I live in SC, and had to unplug my phone the last few days. It was call after call from Romney, John McCain, and Nikky Haley (who I am other wise inclined to like). The only other I got was a stumble mouthed guy who sounded half drunk reading a Santorum script.
I plugged my phone back in after 7pm this evening!
Christian:
“Evangelicals are the base of the GOP. If they stay home, Republicans lose, like they did when they nominated the moderate John McCain.”
Not sure what you mean by this.
Accoding to exit polls, in 2004 evangelicals made up 23% of the national vote for president. In 2008 evangelicals made up 26% of the vote.
I’ll tell you what he meant. SocCons don’t make up all the vote, but they DO make up a lot of the organization. When they “stay home”, the apparatus that gets others to the polls stays home, too.
Why do you trust these exit polls, or anything else you hear from the democrat-controlled media?
If this is true – it really surprises me. And I’m an evangelical.
I would think conservatives and republicans (not always the same thing) have a bigger problem with Romney’s historically mushy middle, non-conservative political history. And now his inability to defend free market economics vis-a-vis his own history with Bain and now with the tax returns / marginal tax rate. For me, this is a much bigger problem than the fact that his religion is different that mine.
But why don’t they have problems with Gingrich being left wing on some many issues – Global warming, attacking free market capitalism, not to mention serial adultery and lobbying.
His political views are to the left of Romney. Whatever you can say about him, at least he’s a capitalist. Gingrich isn’t.
I have no idea what the Republican party stands for anymore. It’s not free markets. It’s not moral values. Apparently it’s all about being angry.
Say JR, you’ve got the same thing to say on two threads.
It’s like Whack-A-Mole.
Gingrich has credibly refudiated–I love that woman, fraternally, of course–such leftist of those tacks, and had none for long. Lobbying is not credibly different from making use of the right to petition and free speech–I should assume then you have a problem with such constitutional rights?
The solution to “lobbying” is to make the government not worth buying.
For the rest, Gingrich became acquainted with the error of them and mended his views.
Romney still believes in AGW, gun control, and Romneycare.
Why are you stuck on stupid with him?
I am always troubled by, particularly, election year Conservative v. Republican battles. Who is conservative and who is conservative enough. Demands for “purity,” Single-issue people — abortion, gay marriage, gays in the military. For some these are the most important, but not so much so as the media emphasizes.
Those on the right don’t divide up so neatly. There are more important concerns: the economy, unemployment, health care, the repeal of ObamaCare, defense, the Middle East, European collapse, Obama’s slashing of the military, Obama’s deliberate repudiation of the Constitution,Spending, the national Debt, entitlements, reforming Social Security, reforming health Care. Does anyone recall which debate really discussed these major, important issues? It was the one partly hosted by Heritage, where the questions were asked by associates from Heritage and AEI. Perhaps the ONLY good questions in all the debates. The media has encouraged debate about the things the Left chooses to portray as the ONLY concerns of the narrow, bigoted wing-nuts on the Right, and for some reason the Republicans cooperate. Explain that!
Obama is a stuttering cluster***k of a miserable failure.
Oh I agree. But Obama is better than Newt Gingrich. And I will work to defeat Newt Gingrich. When Obama wins, I will breathe a sigh of relief that it is not the corrupt Newt Gingrich.
And I will never call myself a Republican again if Newt Gingrich is being Republican means. I am not a hypocrite.
His losing has nothing to do with religious bigotry. It had to do with being a flip flopper combined with the inability to defend himself. He looks great and commanding on platform, but once you get pass that, you are left with a guy who has no convictions.
Evangelical/fundamentalist/whatever Christian voters might vote for Gingrich over Romney, but it’s silly to infer that they won’t vote for Romney over Obama. I know many hard-shell fundamentalists and they are without exception in the “A. B. O.” — anybody but Obama — camp. Those in South Carolina voted for an unrepentant adulterer, for crying out loud — they will accept the lesser of two evils.
Yeah, that’s hardly a ringing endorsement. But Obama is a known quantity this time around, and people will walk barefoot over broken glass to vote him out this year.
Those in South Carolina voted for an unrepentant adulterer…
False.
Newt Gingrich has repented. What – you were expecting some kind of ashes and sackcloth hair-pulling Hebrew Scripture things too?
Try again.
I think the previous writer had in mind an earlier election and W. J. Clinton, not Gingrich!
I’m becoming more and more convinced that Obama will be re-elected no matter who the Redumblicans nominate, Rommney won’t fight, and he won’t have a VP candidate who’ll fight either. It isn’t in him. And it isn’t in the Country Clubbing blazer wearing “Skippies” that think they run the show in the Republican party. Time for a socially moderate, fiscally responsible, third party that doesn’t take prisoners. If that happens we may be able to fix all the mistakes we’ve made for the last 50 years. If we can’t, well, unlike all the folks who came here when the places they were fell to the totalitarians we have no place to go.
The libs in NYC were famous for saying that they didn’t know a single person who voted fir Nixon in 1972, yet he took almost 60% of the vote. Just 4 years earlier, the state (meaning downstate metro-NYC) went Democrat (less than 50%).
I’m thinking that evangelicals may be like the NYC brahmin crowd; they won’t know anyone who voted for Mittens either, if he gets the nomination, What they say in exit polls is not a reliable indicator of how they vote.
I’m wondering if Belladonna Rogers will write now:
Resigning Yourself to Gingrich: A Guide for the Nemesis-punished Romniacs
Romney didn’t only lose among evangelicals. He also lost overwhelmingly among working0class voters. His slick corporate demeanor, uptight and too pious, and offshore Cayman tax shelters aren’t going to win over blue collar independents. It’s a wild chance and a good battle with Newt or certain defeat with a Romney the pseudo-con.
We stand at Armageddon, we are fighting for the Lord.
Here in Florida we have received mailings from Romney every day this past week. Our early voting started today and we went ahead and voted — the calls and mailings will be wasted on us. Incidentally, seemed they had a good turnout for the first day of early voting, so apparently plenty of voters have already made up their minds around here.
I don’t understand the innuendo about Catholics’ view of Mormons? I am Catholic, and perhaps I’m ignorant on the topic, but to me Mormons are no different than the rest of the Protestants. Catholics vote for Protestants, why wouldn’t they vote for Romney? Yes, ok, Anglicans are really not that different, but I couldn’t really tell you the difference between a Baptist, a Mormon, and a “non-denominational” Christian.
TonyC (and a previous poster): I’m not going to provide a lesson here in catholic theology. But in many dioceses, there are lectures one can attend, “Is Mormonism a Cult?”. You can guess the answer. The basis for this view is probably a few clicks away at Google.
One general respose to a number of question. The exit data show that religion DID play a role in the results. There were other reasons. Note the title of this post.
Yes, but what you are missing is that that is nothing more but the traditional Catholic view of Protestants in general–traditional Catholics think Baptists and Mormons and Christian Scientists are heretics. Moderate Catholics think that of none of them. There’s no specific anti-Mormonism in Catholic thought.
A Baptist who converts to Catholicism doesn’t need to be re-baptized. A Mormon does. There’s your difference.
Yes, Wikipedia is good there, but the Mormon apologist sites are good too, once you have some background. I suggest the Wikipedia pages on ‘The Book of Abraham’ or ‘The Kinderhook Plates’. Pay special attention to the provenance of The Book of Abraham. The Kinderhook Plates is a very interesting 19th Century corner of history. Mark Twain had a lot to say about Mormonism as well in ‘Roughing It’.
Christian, Not just dioceses, but ex-Mormons can get help from ICSA, and Rick Ross’ site has quite a lot on the LDS church.
I don’t understand the innuendo about Catholics’ view of Mormons? I am Catholic, and perhaps I’m ignorant on the topic, but to me Mormons are no different than the rest of the Protestants. Catholics vote for Protestants, why wouldn’t they vote for Romney? Yes, ok, Anglicans are really not that different, but I couldn’t really tell you the difference between a Baptist, a Mormon, and a “non-denominational” Christian. So, to be clear, if Catholics vote for Protestants (which they do) why won’t they vote for a Mormon variety?
I know a number of Mormons, and they seem like fine people to me. This stuff we hear about Mormonism being a problem is coming from the Democrats, as an attempt to divide us. It fits perfectly the liberal caricature of a conservative, and is probably the kind of thing they think we are concerned with. It’s the kind of thing that Archie Bunker would say.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/mitt-lost-south-carolina-over-mormonism.html I am not buying this article. Seriously, how about some data? South Carolina Evangelicals choose a recent Roman Catholic convert over a Mormon? Could it be they chose Newt over something else?
If you haven’t noticed the convergence of evangelical and Catholic interests in the last decade, you haven’t been paying attention. Life, Israel, marriage, the culture, and much much more.
You sound like a Mormon who calls the Catholic Church the “whore of Rome.”
I.e., no different than an extreme Protestant, and reflected in what super-right Catholics think of Protestants.
gee, is Romney a Mormon?
Who knew?
For the record, I admire Mormons. Never encountered one who wasn’t top shelf. The problem is, there are lots of people who don’t like the religion.
Newt’s got his problems, but people can relate to him. All this nonsense about how much independents and moderate dems hate him is marxist and republican ruling class spin. 90% of independents and moderates don’t know him from Adam, so they couldn’t possibly hate him. The things he did 15 years ago that make the RULING CLASS hate him are irrelevant to 99% of the voting public. What they will see is an extremely bright granpa who loves his country and regrets the indiscretions of his past.
Every time I get a call at home from a charity or a political organization, I ask the caller if they have cross-checked their numbers against the state and federal “Do Not Call” lists. Each time they respond that they are exempt from the restrictions imposed on businesses regarding those lists.
Then I ask them if it makes sense to call people about ANYTHING when those people have gone to the trouble to ask not to be disturbed. Then I hang up.
I agree with Dustin (in thread number 4. above).
I think Romney lost for a combination of many factors -including also the christians not voting for Mormons, but that’s not THE defining only and unique factor, and not involving all the christians. And I hope Mormonism will not be the biggest factor.
When I was protestant (and I was a hardcore one) still I dated a Mormon girl. I don’t agree with their views but they are normal people, are very family oriented. The same with the Jehovah’s Witness, I will never agree with their views, perhaps only a few if them, but all in all, they look decent people.
Obama’s got to be chortling with glee. What is his religion? More importantly, where does he want to take this country? I don’t think there is a chance in the world that Gingrich is going to beat Obama.
I’ve known many Mormons, I view them as Christian, and all that I’ve known were stalwart characters.
It’s discouraging to believe that millions died to protect America’s freedom, and it’s going to be lost, without a bullet being fired, because some wouldn’t consider voting for a Mormon.
Totally agree. If that’s the reason, that’s just insane.
Charles: “It’s discouraging to believe that millions died to protect America’s freedom, and it’s going to be lost, without a bullet being fired, because some wouldn’t consider voting for a Mormon.”
You’ve got to remember, oodles of people voted for Obama in ’08 without knowing anything (like he hates this country and has always wanted to intentionally destroy it) about him. Don’t underestimate the dumb-a$$ factor of a nice healthy chunk of the American electorate. I hate to sound elitist, but a lot of us just isn’t that bright.
Dear Charles;
Why won’t I vote for Romney, let me count the reasons…
1) in 1994 instead of joining the rest of the countries Republicans (along with newt) Mitt avoided the Contract with America. He called it a Bad Idea. and he LOST to Ted Kennedy.
2) As governer of Massachusitts, instead of Leading, he went along to get along and created Romney Care. Let’s do the Wrong thing the Right Way he said.
3) Every time he’s given an opportunity to stand for something he Equivocates and finds that Safe, Non-Offensive, Non-Combative answer showing that he really doesn’t have a core belief that he is passionate aobut.
4) in reality he wants to be president to BE President. Not to accomplish something. Not to change the direction of the country.
Mormonism has NOTHING to do with those reasons. I have more if you’d like, and they still have NOTHING TO DO with Mormonism. They all have to do with Mitt H.W. Bush. I’ve seen this show before and it didn’t turn out well.
I’m sorry but;
As far as I’m concerned, the Mormon thing for Romney ranks right up there with the Black thing with Obama.
Bolshevik plain and simple!
How can you equate Obama’s race with Romney’s religion? Obama’s race gains him support, while Romney’s religion drives voters away.
The Mormon issue is pretty big back East where they don’t have so many of them and peoples’ perception is often based on stories passed from person to person and not on personal experience. Out West where you have a much larger percentage of Mormons, it isn’t such a huge issue. It won’t be an issue at all in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Washington and Oregon. Those states already have very large Mormon populations and are probably the most popular non-Catholic denomination in those states. But those states don’t carry a lot of delegates.
Newt ain’t that electable either. I gotta believe he loses some fraction of women off the top, and having him on the ballot will energize the left. He averages 11 points behind Obama on national polls.
Its pretty amazing to say it, but if Romney’s religion/base enthusiasm level is in fact a huge problem, other than the people on the sidelines, the only Republican candidate who could actually win is Ron Paul.
I’m a conservative Bible believing Christian who believes that Mormonism is a cult, but I would vote for a Mormon for the same reason I would vote for a conservative Jew. Respect for religion, a belief in absolutes, a love of our country, its roots and traditions. A belief in the greatness of America and its place in history.
I’m a Newt man, glad he won, but to give credit where credit is due, I believe Romney has conducted himself admirably and has postured himself as a very hardline conservative. Its just that as good as Romney has been this time around, Newt has been better, much better.
His religion is keeping him from being electable? Are you sure it isn’t the fact he comes across as a used car salesman who will say anything to make the deal?
There’s another evangelical group out there waiting for the religious right to fractionate. Evangelical Atheists.
Maybe the schism should be reconsidered.
I don’t believe Newt can win either. I believe the best he can hope for if everything goes perfectly is a 10 point loss to Obama. He won’t pick up any crossover Democrats and few independents and Republicans only account for 35% of the electorate. A 10 point loss would be a great campaign for Newt.
You do know that voters that had identified themselves as Democrat number 20% less than in 2008? And the numbers that identify as Republican are on the rise by a factor of 20%. The numbers aren’t in Obama’s favor – not by a long shot. Your Messiah will lose.
You do know that large numbers of Democrats and Republicans are declaring as Independents, don’t you? And you do know that, on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being very Liberal and 5 being very Conservative, most identify themselves as just barely conservative, 3.3. People are sick of the party extremes.
Exactly. Most of the people in this country hold fairly conservative positions when it comes to defense and economic policy but don’t want either the far left or the far right shoving social policy down their throats via government.
Most have no patience with the “purity tests” and the rhetoric of someone is a RINO if they aren’t in 100% lockstep on every single issue. Reagan was right, it is better to get some percentage of something than it is to get 100% of nothing but many far right and far left believe compromise is a dirty word and want all or nothing. I heard many in the last election who were bragging about cutting off their noses to spite their faces by refusing to vote for McCain. I don’t have the time for that sort of attitude.
I personally believe that Romney would make a better President than either Gingrich or Santorum. Pawlenty would have been my first choice among this cycle’s crop. One thing with Romney is that he is a abstract thinker and only about 15% of the population are abstract thinkers. He doesn’t know how to put his thoughts across in a way that concrete thinkers (the other 85%) can readily grasp. Reagan had that ability. Newt has that ability. Romney needs a communications coach to learn how to communicate his ideas in ways the average Joe can “get”.
Point is, most Americans don’t want a “staunch conservative” or a “staunch liberal” as President. That only leads to more divisive politics. We want someone who can make progress, even if it is only incremental, at things like getting spending under control and changing our system where we currently penalize success and subsidize failure. We need smaller government but we don’t need one that forces social values down our throats. Our government should reflect our culture, not dictate it. At the federal level, our government should get its nose completely out of social issues.
“A 10 point loss would be a great campaign for Newt.”
You’re probably right. No way he can beat Romney either. Just wait till they vote in South Carolina. That will prove it once and for all.
Lets get real here – Romney did not lose because he’s a Mormon but because the voters recognized in Newt the ability to take on the MSM and literally humiliate a couple of their own on a national stage and can carry the fight to Obama and leave him stuttering in a debate.
Thats the reality.
1. I’m Catholic and we are not evangelical Christians. There are not that many Catholics in South Carolina.
2. I have a bunch of Mormon friends, and I have never had a Catholic priest tell me that Mormons were bad people – we are not Baptists (who hate us Catholics as well as Mormons).
3. I don’t like Romney because I met him and found him unable to look me in the eye when introduced. Also, his handshake was limp. And he created Romneycare. And he is another Northeastern liberal Republican.
4. Romney has no fire in his soul – if he did, I’d support him. I don’t give a damn what his religion is.
5. I will vote for the person opposing Obama, unless it is Ron Paul. Then I’ll just turn into a hermit.
Romney is clearly the right person for president, but his political organization seems so inept and tone deaf that … ahhhh … I am starting to change my mind that he is the right person if his campaign staff is this ineffective and unperceptive. Gingrich is not the right guy – see how much all the conservative people he used to work with in Congress loath him. Electing Romney and a Tea Party Congress is still the best solution. Gingrich is more of a big government politician then Romney ever thought of being. Gingrich is the Thomas Friedman of politicians. Both have never met a giant government program for a solution that they don’t love.
“Gingrich is more of a big government politician then Romney ever thought of being.”
Lets see here – Newt actually helped balance a couple of federal budgets – Mitt? He helped pass Romney Care.
Methinks you contradict yourself.
He stated his opinion. You stated yours. No contradiction here.
Actually he stated opinion – I stated facts. You might want to re-read both posts to get a clear understanding of the differences. You know – subjective vs objective.
“Gingrich is more of a big government politician then Romney ever thought of being.”
Except Gingrich actually has shrunk government, Romney has only grotesquely grown it.
Thanks for the softball pitch.
Why is it that so many people can’t get outside their rigid idealogical boundaries and blinders?
There’s a real world out here people, and the real world doesn’t march to the hard-right drumbeat.
What Gingrich has always done is apply conservative principles to the REAL WORLD, not your idealized one, kind of like, you know, Ronald Reagan. So in 2006, living in the REAL WORLD, the world where 90+ of the country tacitly supported the overwhelming consensus to expand affordable housing, Newt consulted with Fannie Mae. Circa 2012, it turns out thet 90% of conservatives are absolutely sure that they were violently opposed to Fannie Mae in 2006…because they live in a fantasy world. Newt lives in the real one, and was doing the best he could in 2006 to influence the discussion in a conservative direction.
He did the same thing when he sat down with Piglosi in 2007. Dream-world conservatives would like to imagine that everybody knew in 2007 that AGW was a con, but the facts are that the vast majority of the country accepted it at that time. What Gingrich was attempting to do was influence the discussion in a conservative direction.
Now in 2012, he is labelled an anti-capitalist for legitimately bringing up the indisputable fact that Romney’s cutthroat business background (80% profits while laying off thousands of legacy workers) would be a very significant factor if he wins the nomination, and the fact that Mitt can’t seem to explain the things that swing voters will be concerned about.
There are many more examples, but the overriding theme is that Newt has been consistently and REALISTICALLY conservative his entire life, unlike the guy who has talked conservatism since he flipped a coin and decided to run for president on as a republicn in 2007.
I’m an Evangelical Christian and I’ll vote for Romney over Obama. And I’ll walk on glass barefoot to get to the polls to vote against Obama, no matter which Republican Obama runs against.
But if I could give a piece of advice to Romney and his admirers, which I am not.
Your boy needs to toughen up. He’s milquetoast – a smarter version of John McCain. Twice I’ve seen Romney go soft on his description of Obama. The best Romney can do is come up with some “European Socialist lite” description. Mealy mouth isn’t going to cut it this time. The media will eat Romney alive.
Romney is weak. We need somebody that is going to go after Obama and the media with a vengeance, and if Romney wants to win he needs to learn that quickly.
Good points. I’d also add that Romney is trying to sell himself as someone who can work with the democrats and get things done. Sorry, but we just had a president like that in George W. Bush. He compromised on every issue, and gave so much to the democrats, that we ended up with a democrat administration. The only thing republicans got was the blame when democrat ideas didn’t work. We don’t need another Bush/McCain type, we need someone who will fight.
You know who is Unelectable?
Ronald Reagan. Just look how his Unfavorables out do his Favorables…
October 1979, Ronald Reagan
Favorable 38 %
Unfavorable 39%
And The Incumbant President is going to Slaughter him;
January 10, 1980 Gallup Poll
Carter 63%
Reagan 32%
Let’s Stop it With the UNELECTABLE Nonsense, huh?
It is more of a tea party vote, that has little to do with religion. Romney has a perfect record as a good Christian. Gingrich has admitted to his flaws, and is not a deeply religious person. This is just another hit piece against Southerners and conservatives.
Gingrich won all but 2 counties. Two of the 3 largest counties with our biggest cities were won by Romney. Gingrich won Rock Hill, metropolis of Charlotte North carolina, not only that but Romney underperformed Santorum there 22 to 24%. Furthermore Gingrich won Greenville upstate which is home to BMW, and has a lot less minority voters than either our State Capitol and Charleston (my hometown area) which have much heavier populations of minorites. Charleston also has more retirees.
Romney, the urban liberal.
“Romney, the urban liberal.”
100% true, that. And why he should not be the nominee.
Is it possible to be conservative and tolerant in expression. If I believe so it appears I would be labeled liberal by many of the comments here. Based on Romney’s speech four years ago and discussions with others of his faith he believes the constitution to not just inspired, but divinely established. I still view him as more honestly conservative than Gindrich and Santoram.
I see a lot said that he is a flip flopper, but have never seen anything he has said that tells me he has changed positions more than any other person I have seen grow in experience. What I have seen is that description repeated over and over without any support for the statement. I guess we have learned from Democrats that false statements repeated constantly as true do become so.
What I really hate is that the liberal easteners get to select our nominee before we in the state of Washington get to have some say. Lived in Tennessee 4 years and Houston 4 years and I never have equated the evangelical with conservatism, even if they agreed with me on the sin and tragedy of abortion. As much as I loved being around those who were always willing to witness for their faith I was happy to get back to the west where more often tolerance and love was a direct result of faith.
People against Romney’s religion do not need to be huge in numbers. just enough. Then race is won at the margins when it is close.
Moreso than his obviously false conversions from previously held liberal opinions and policies, what Romney has not flip flopped on is quite damning.
And yes, he tried a new coat of spots this time out.
He still supports:
AGW justified carbon controls.
Gun controls.
Bailouts of wall street.
Government control of healthcare.
The 23-26% of the voters who are the evangelicals.socons will indeed vote for ABO. What they will not do is donate, man the phone banks, walk precicts and drive voters to the polls. Those are the things that win elections.
Dont worry, there is a large contigency of Mormons nationwide that will do that. Of course they are concentrated in areas…so….err..
John Huntsman the Mormon drops out and endorses Mitt Romney the Mormon, coicidence?
This Mormon will not continue to support the Republican Party if they pick someone so utterly corrupt and completely opposite of what the Party was supposed to stand for.
It seems Christians are hypocrites.
Mormons are not. I will never vote for Newt Gingrich. In fact Obama is a better Christian. I will vote for him over Gingrich. The bigots can all console themselves that they kept the best man out, because he was a Mormon…
Since you all agree that Obama is better than having a Mormon President. I believe Obama is better than someone as mentally unstable and uttterly corrupt as Newt Gingrich.
Newt Ginrich will never be President. He is corrupt to his core.
Harry Reid is a Mormon. You want to talk about Christian hypocrites again?
I have found most Mormons stand up people. I have found most Christians the same. But I take offense at being called a hypocrite because somebody gets twisted that I don’t find your pet candidate my type of pol. I find Romney weak. And frankly, anybody that suggests I’m a hypocrite by affiliation doesn’t deserve my support.
Let’s get off the holier than thou and concentrate on what most of us have said. If Romney wins the election, he has our vote.
Newt, more then Romney by far, does stand for what I stand for. Romney is a liberal.
If your religion motivates you to vote for Romney, we are better off without you.
That’s a variation on “if you oppose Obama, you’re racist”, and it’s bullshit.
Catholics and Mormons are especially hostile to one another because they are the two Christian sects that rely most heavily on procreation as a competitive advantage.
Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Lutherans and other Christian sects generally have at most two or three children per family. Meanwhile the Mormons all try to have six or more. The end result after a few generation is that Mormons will dominate these other groups. The future belongs to those who show up. The one group they can’t beat this way are the Catholics because they’re running the exact same strategy. Both sides know that in the long game for demographic dominance, it is they who will be staring across at one another and neither side has found a way to beat the other yet.
So naturally they don’t like one another very much.
Catholics and Mormons actually get along quite well. Most Catholics and Mormons have been the targets of bigotry and have had to deal with cult claims. In my experience they are generally sympathetic towards one another and don’t tolerate bigotry. Doctrinally they aren’t compatible but as people they seem to get along just fine. Multiple joint humanitarian projects and Prop 8 are evidence of that.
I was for Romney in 2008 but I’ve seen firsthand that he doesn’t wear well on people. Indeed the word phony increasingly comes to mind. I am fairly certain he has a solid core of personal convictions but he has a habit of making short term political calculations that belie his proclaimed political convictions.
Interestingly some of the Republicans I know who are supporting Romney in 2012 levied the he’s a phony argument against him in 2008 when Romney was actively courting conservatives. Must be their stupid custom of automatically favoring the guy who lost four years ago.
What she said.
In 2008 I thought Romney would make a good executive, but wasn’t much as a national candidate. He is learning as a candidate, but seems to go much too quickly to the negative, and seems afraid to say anything positive. No doubt this is the advice he gets from his advisors, but I still don’t like it, and now doubt how good he’d be as an executive either.
Newt’s faults are all there to see, and so are his virtues. I fear Romney is an empty suit. He might be OK as president, certainly better than whatever it is we have now, but that is mighty faint praise.
one should not try to cater to “independents”- it is the ultimate fools errand
one should try to draw a distinct line in the sand contrasting obamanation versus freedom and force the precious “independents” to make a choice
RINOmney has no cajones and Newt has plenty… the opening of the debate is what cost Mitt the win.
Many evangelicals and Catholics know that Mormons look down on us and virtually despise us notwithstanding their kind and generous exterior. They are extremely arrogant because they are taught to be as one of the tricks to keep them from rejecting their church and accepting true Christianity. Don’t believe me, try arguing with a Mormon missionary as I have done hundreds of times.
The most dangerous aspect is they do not think as we do. Mormon men are taught that they will be gods in the next world. That makes for an aggressive, arrogant and carelss thinker because it is very difficult for a Mormon to admit he may be wrong. Better are Christians who are fearful of God and know they can be tricked and are therefor cautious thinkers, seeking advice from wise counselors.
Mormon fwomen, forget it. They are door mats. They never criticize their husbands because their eternity is directly tied to pleasing their husbands. If Mormon women would wake up, there would be no Mormon church.
You are right. Except, I’m not sure many evangelicals, these days, would know what you are talking about. I now call myself a conservative Christian just to differentiate
I have been a Mormon all my life, and never knew until just now that I haven’t been able to think critically. Thank you for pointing out how I have been brain-washed. My wife has participated in the charade that has kept us both blind to the truth. I’m going to go home right now and we’ll both of us leave the LDS religion.
Thanks again for your astute reasoning that has proven that Mormons are truly idiots. Also, thanks for revealing to me things I never realized I believed. I owe you big time.
My family has been in rural SC since the early 1700s. The premise of this article is silly. If it were true, Ron Paul, the only mainstream protestant, pro-life candidate should have done much better.
Vote breakdown for evangelicals:
Gingrich,(Catholic/Baptist/Lutheran???)serial adulterer – 44%
Romney (Mormon) – 21%
Santorum (Catholic) – 21%
Ron Paul (Baptist) and others – 14%
CBS reports: “Nearly half of evangelical voters – 45 percent – cited the ability to beat Obama as the candidate quality that mattered most in their vote decision, and they awarded 55 percent of their ballots to Gingrich.”
I agree with that statement. I voted for Romney in 2008 and Newt this time. It’s nice to have candidates with religious views similar to your own, but it’s the ability to do the job that needs to be done that really matters in an election.
I think most South Carolinians expect Romney to be the eventual nominee. However, ABC’s effort to influence the election together with the need to wake Romney up, to make him understand the nomination is not his by right, to make him get off his @$$ and tell us forcefully what he stands for and how he will beat Obama, spurred me and many of my friends and family to go and vote for Newt. We know that he will stand up to Obama, and he won’t hold his tongue for fear of the press or offending anybody.
As for the phone calls, I think I got more than 50 before I just unplugged the phone. Most by far were for Romney, and they absolutely reached the point of harassment. I thought the calls from John McCain were especially humorous. I’d be more likely to vote against whoever he endorsed. If Romney really thought a McCain endorsement would help him in SC, then he is so hopelessly out of touch with reality that he doesn’t stand a chance in November.
Really, people in South Carolina might have taken his religion into account? There might have been religious bigotry at work? People might have spread rumors, lies, innuendo, and misinformation about the “Mormons”?
Say it isn’t so. It can’t be. Christians don’t do that to each other…………….No, I didn’t forget about Rick Perry’s supporter who was supposedly a pastor nor did I forget about the dirty tricks between the Huckster and McCain. Nor did I forget that until 1976 there was a law on the books in Missouri that one could “exterminate” Mormons for the good of the community.
So the next time someone references Jihad, you can tell them that some “Christian sects” are still practicing that kind of behavior. By their fruits shall ye know them ……..as someone once said.
Comparing Christians to Jihadist Muslims is sick.
You forgot the part about Utah Catholics being second-class citizens!
I seriously doubt Mormonism had to do with Romney’s defeat. Newt shredded the MSM two days ago, and Romney looked like a limp noodle in comparison. THAT is why Romney lost.
Even the evangelicals know “it’s the economy, stupid.”
Not sure which exit polls the author is looking at but none of them from South Carolina have to do with Romney’s Mormon Faith.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/south-carolina/exit-polls
Fox. Question was how important religious views were to the voter and Romney was crushed among people who said very or somewhat important. He only won among those who said religious views were not important. Again, this may be ONE reason he lost. There are many more which I will try to cover in subsequent posts.
We need to see the exact phrasing of the poll, but that doesn’t mean as reported that Romney’s religion was their problem with him. It may be just his obvious sliminess pricking their conscience.
He comes off like someone you wouldn’t buy a used car from.
I seriously doubt this issue has much significance. The only reason anyone is talking about religion is because the liberal media is bringing it up. It reeks of their standard tactics, which are meant to divide conservatives. A real question would have allowed respondents to rate the importance of the various issues at stake. I suspect that this issue would have been at the bottom.
Romney=Obama
The political achievements of Romney and Obama are identical
Romneycare=Obamacare
Romney raised taxes=Obama wants to raise taxes
Romney increased spending=Obama really increased spending
Romney is a 1 term Governor=Obama will be a 1 term President
Gingrich on the other hand, took over congress, balanced the budget, reformed welfare, and cut taxes, they are exact opposites.
“Actions speak louder than words”
Gingrich’s actions are conservative, Romney’s are not he is a conservative of convenience and cannot be trusted.
Christian, if you think Mitt’s religion played a significant role in getting trounced by Newt in SC, especially considering what transpired at the last two debates, you need to rest up. You need sleep till you’re thinking straight again. love you still, rachel
Mitt Romney doesn’t have the fire in his belly to beat Obama. He is too comfortable, too complacent, too careful to be able to go up against the Obama Steamroller which, BTW, will be up to dirty tricks galore in order to stay in power. His Mormonism doesn’t work in his favour, either.
As a Canadian observer who up until Obama’s presidency deeply valued Canada’s relationship with our neighbour to the South, I want to see a Republican candidate whose modus operandi is “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.” I see that kind of passion in Newt Gingrich, not in Mitt Romney or any of the other GOP candidates.
Who could Gingrich team up with in order to win the next election? America’s survival as a vital democracy and world power for good depends on a leader like Gingrich, with years of Beltway experience and a political brilliance of mind, to steer your country out of the shark-infested, shoal-ladened waters in which the Obama presidency has marooned the once-mighty U.S. of A.
As Newt Gingrich said in his acceptance speech last night, this is the most important election in Americans’ lives. The U.S.A. has to get it right this time or the consequences to democracy not just in your country but throughout the world are dire.
God bless America!
According to the article, Romney lost the Evangelical vote due to his Mormonism. However, I really believe the truth Romney never has had the Conservative base due to his troubled past as a so-called Massachusetts moderate.
I have never talked about Romney’s Mormon background, but his eager will to play supplicant. Romney was supplicant for the Democrat legislature in Massachusetts; likewise, he is supplicant for the Republican & Democrat establishment. THAT’s why he lost. And will continue to lose.
Romney lost because he deserved to lose. He’s a wishy-washy pseudo-conservative. Gingrich went on the attack defending conservative views and values, and attacking liberalism. I believe there are many more conservatives bothered by Gingrich’s infidelity than there are with Romney’s Mormonism.
Dear Mitt Romney,
Outdated PolitiBots like you who cannot think for themselves and constantly rely on polling-committees for not-so-well-rehearsed script lines are doomed to fail…no matter how many dolla…err…I mean…batteries are stuffed up your backside.
But, go on, buy all the dirty smear ad spots you can, because you are incapable of convincing anyone you mean a thing you say. You even come off sounding guilty of your wealth. So much for all that Massachusetts influence!
Pity that your “inevitable” slogan, which was on the tip of all your advertisers’ tongues, sank like a lead balloon among those tested. I guess they just haven’t been fed the proper amount of propaganda. Silly, how some people believe they should think for themselves.
Be nice, and you still might get an invitation to Gingrich’s innauguration.
You’re not describing the data. You’re describing your interpretation of the data. Just because voters were asked an abstract question about whether or not they thought it was important to have shared beliefs with a candidate, doesn’t mean that it was a deciding factor. Even the correlation with who they voted for doesn’t show causation. Go back and look at the data for Iowa and NH–you’re reading too much into a statistical fluke.
The reality is that religious voters are more likely to say “yes” to that question and more like to vote for a more conservative candidate.
The real reason Romney lost is that he came across as weak, timid, and relatively liberal. The voters in SC wanted a strong, aggressive conservative.
You forgot “amazingly lifelike”.
If Americans can not come to their senses and vote for whoever the Republican candidate is, then there is no hope. A vote for Obmama is a vote for big, bloated centralized government running every aspect of your life. Big government, means little citizens with few actual rights. Sounds a lot like communism. Chose your fate in November.
If you drop an egg off a twelve foot ladder, it isn’t the last six inches that break it, any more than Mormonism hindered Romney in SC. If Romney were a stellar rock solid conservative with proven performance as such, he would have wiped the floor with everyone else.
Silly petulance wants to call “bigot” when in reality Romney’s glaring deficit of conservative bona fides is his obvious problem. But by all means claim that “it’s religion!!!” and keep losing. You cannot win votes from people whom you refuse to understand.
I don’t like Gingrich, and I don’t like Mitt. But I’ll vote Nobama. Articles like this one entrench me in defending Gingrich and I hate that, but only slightly less than I hate seeing people demonized because of their faith, which in this case was done by the author of this article.
Deomonize? Nonsense. I made it clear that religious views “ought” not to be a concern. The post was descriptive, not an opinion. Indeed, my personal views were not present, for if they were I would sing their praises based on my own experiences.
You need to rephrase your first graph. You draw conclusions on the data that are not fully supported unless perceived with a biased eye. Correlation is not causation.
No doubt people want their leaders to share their views. Duh. However religion is not the determining factor. If Romney was truly and demonstrably a proponent of conservative principles he would have won SC walking away. Period.
To inject religion as a cause because people express preferences that any sane person would have is in fact bigotry. Having been called racist for my differences with Obama makes this accusation particularly mean-spirited.
It’s hard not to feel we are screwed.
The same arguments against Newt can be made against Mitt.
BOTH are weak candidates, even against a weakened Obama.
All this money and time, to arrive at this choice…how depressing.
There is truth to all that you say, but I don’t think those things are the real reason he lost. Romney allowed himself to be painted into a corner as defender of capitalism leaving all rest of the field to Newt. Capitalism is a fine thing but it is a bloodless concept. Not like liberty, mother, apple pie, fried chicken and the flag. Think of the Ballad of John Henry: Newt became John Henry and Mitt became the steam drill. And even when John Henry died beating the steam drill, the concept of the human (a man who needs a job) against the machine (capitalism) is so powerful that the ballad goes on to say that the next day John Henry’s wife showed up at work with his hammer and drove steel just like a man. And even though we all know that it was capitalism that gave John Henry his job, it was also capitalism that wanted to take it away. In any election between between John Henry and a steam drill, everybody knows who is gonna win. Mitt could have helped himself by saying, “Hell, it’s my money and I can do what I want with it.” Then he would have been a defender of liberty and got out of his corner. But he couldn’t, because a steam drill is just a steam drill.
watched the Republican debate last night, and I think I’ve finally recovered.
That was traumatic (and I’m really not exaggerating…more in a moment).
I find myself bizarrely fascinated by the spectacle of these debates. I watch
with a strange combination of horror and hilarity. I find that I need to
concentrate on the latter in order to not blow a vein, and I’m usually live
tweeting with friends and a handful of journalists I follow. (You can find me on
Twitter @Luvrte66.) Sometimes Dan and George make appearances; sometimes Tom;
last night it was Ryan. We make some serious points, but throw a few jokes and
sarcastic remarks in there, too. The journalists that I usually see on there are
David Corn of Mother Jones, Chuck Todd of NBC, and last night Democrat
strategist Paul Begala and Timecorrespondent Michael Scherer were on there. They
have some very astute comments and pertinent points. I’d say that they’re
generally quite fair, although they’re pretty much on the left side of the
aisle, so they express horror at some of the same things that I do.
Last night was especially awful for me because of the South Carolina audience.
They were out for blood. They came across as angry and combative. They booed
Juan Williams for asking Newt if his remarks about poor kids working as janitors
or about food stamps (He offered to go to the NAACP and discuss why jobs are
better than food stamps. Yes, he really did.) were racially insensitive.
Williams was one of the moderators, people. He was doing his job in asking tough
but reasonable questions. They booed Ron Paul when he said that we should really
be “doing unto others” when it comes to attacking people…that we carpet bomb
these countries and then wonder why people hate us. That’s right. They booed the
Golden Rule. They cheered when Perry said that “South Carolina is at war with
this federal government and this administration” concerning the Voting Rights
Act. This in the state that first seceded from the Union, starting the Civil
War, and to add a little double shock powah, on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day!
Impressive. They also cheered Perry when he made the incredible statement that
because members of the Obama administration condemned the behavior of the
Marines who urinated on Taliban corpses, they show “disdain for the military”
and are engaging in “over-the-top rhetoric.” Never mind the fact that
desecration of corpses not only undermines what we are trying to accomplish
there, it is illegal according to military law. But that’s a discussion for
another day. When Perry said that the Marines in question should not be charged
with a criminal act (again, ignoring that the military considers it exactly
that), the crowd cheered.
What really got to me, though, was when one of the moderators asked a question
of Romney about immigration, and began his question with the statement that
Romney’s father was born in Mexico after many Mormons fled to Mexico to avoid
prosecution for polygamy. As soon as the moderator stated that George Romney was
born in Mexico, the crowd booed. They BOOED! At the mere mention of the country,
which happens to be one of our allies! I still cannot believe that happened. I
had a moment of despair and depression, but today I’m channeling it into
contempt and anger. Paul Begala tweeted this:
I completely agree with him. I’ve seen the behavior of these crowds—this was
definitely the worst yet—and I have just been appalled. Obviously, I’m pretty
far to the left, but there are plenty of people who are more in the middle,
moderates and independents who are still making up their minds, and I don’t see
how any moderate person could see this behavior and think it’s anything short of
dangerous and mean-spirited lunacy. It is of some consolation to me that the
more the crowds egg them on, the more the candidates attempt to play to them and
toss out more and more red meat. It may play well with audiences like that in
South Carolina last night, but when it comes to the general election, I’m
guessing it won’t be so warmly received. And there is plenty of video to be
mined for use this summer and fall.
As for being traumatized? I had a bad dream last night in which the President
was shot, and later died. I don’t recall any details about it, probably because
it was so disturbing to me. It’s one thing to disagree with this President, but
the behavior of the crowd last night was deplorable and downright bloodthirsty
in its intolerance. I haven’t been quite so disgusted during this process as I
was last night. It also solidified my resolve to do what I can to make sure
President Obama has four more years and to keep these pandering cretins out of
the White House. (Ron Paul excepted. I don’t want him in the White House, but
it’s for other reasons, not because he panders.)
There’s another debate this Thursday, in Charleston. What will happen in that
one? Will the audience burn an effigy of the President as the candidates look on
with indulgent grins?
nutwooodjunction.blogspot.com