|
6
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by Super Tuesday has come and gone and it appears my earlier prediction of McCain being destined for the GOP nomination is closer than ever to fruition. While this is disappointing for a Romney supporter, I must admit Huckabee is getting under my skin more than anyone right now. I can identify at least two reasons:
- Huckabee is ideologically the Romney-killer. In a world where most voters cast votes against candidates as much as they do for others, McCain's liberalism seemed to be the perfect answer to Romney's Mormonism. In a two man race between McCain and Romney, I think many evangelical conservatives would bite the bullet and get over their religious reservations - rather than vote for someone clearly not aligned with their social agenda, that is. With a third alternative that is neither liberal nor Mormon, however, they can avoid anything so uncomfortable.
- Huckabee is constantly taking jabs at Romney. In fact, I think Romney's money and his alleged flip-flopping have become Huckabee's main talking points - even before God and the IRS. I assume Huckabee is going after Romney because he realizes they are competing for the same votes, but way down inside me is a notion Huckabee is sticking around just to ensure McCain gets the nomination over Mitt.
If Huckabee was out of the race, I wonder how Super Tuesday would have turned out. When faced with the choice between a liberal and Mormon, would evangelicals choose the path of religious toleration as I posited above, or would they compromise their social ideals?
Add a Comment (17)
Email This
Message Author
romney has withdrawn...
RSS
Religious Vote Influence by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 06 February 2008
So ... I saw a comment, "Seriously though, do you really wonder why people call it a cult with stats like that?" in an e-mail regarding religion and voting. Take a look at the voting statistics for Utah which show Romney garnering 90% of the vote. Considering that Romney doesn't currently have any political affiliations with Utah, one can make the leap that Utah's propensity for Mormonism (62% according to Wikipedia) drove the ballots. So are people voting with their conscience, politics or faith?
RE: Religious Vote Influence by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 06 February 2008
I think things like religious or party affiliation make it easy for people to find a reason to become involved. Those who would otherwise not really care (or perhaps concentrate on things such as looks or accent) can say, "I'm voting for this guy because he shares my faith/political affiliation/etc."
As for the cult comment, it's ridiculous. You might as well call all black people a cult because they support Obama overwhelmingly - as well as evangelicals due to their support for Huckabee.
I think the clear indication from the numbers is that people in Utah understand the LDS religion more on a general scale than probably anywhere else. Virtually all Utahans, whether LDS or not, have Mormon friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. They've witnessed first-hand the influence of the religion on people and the interaction of the Church with the government. While many others fear what they don't know, those in Utah (as well as, to a lesser extent, those in Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, etc.) know and don't fear.
Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 06 February 2008
Unfortunately, my Windoze machine rebooted and the comment I had was lost to the electronic ether. So ...
I think the issue being questioned is whether or not this behavior will be bidirectional. I will begin by saying a rational person would assume that in a fair and secular election, a vote is not influenced by an insidious sermon (by any faith) declaring, "Thou shalt cast they vote for Romney ... let us sing." Furthermore, a rational person would therefor conclude a vote is cast purely on the political basis of the candidate.
Now, casting a little reality on our rational person gives us "lazy" people. I agree with you in that a person without knowledge of the issues or the full details upon which a candiate has based a platform will act in simplified terms. Who is "most like me" because the simple conclusion is that like minded people have similar interests and therefore I am represented somewhat accurately. No disagreement there.
Given the 90% vote for Romney in the state for which he has no political presence, it would seem obvious that your assessment is correct. But is it TOO correct?
Could that also mean that Utahans are actually choosing blindly to alternative candidates? 90% almost borders on the incredible 100% democratic votes for Saddam Hussein and 99.3% of Chechnyans voting for Vladmir Putin. So the bidirectional question is whether or not the like minded Mormon influence also means that a hypothetically elected Romney would lead the nation as a Mormon or as a secular leader who happens to be Mormon.
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 06 February 2008
I think you're missing the fact that Utah also has a Democratic primary - and I'm willing to bet if Harry Reid was involved, he would get similar numbers.
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 06 February 2008
I think you're missing the fact that Utah also has a Democratic primary - and I'm willing to bet if Harry Reid was involved, he would get similar numbers.
No no ... I didn't miss that. There is no stark polarization of religion on the Democrat side in Utah. According to the same link, Obama took 57%, Clinton took 39% and Edwards took 3%. That's much more "typical" for a voting system without external influence. The sheer admittance that "if Harry Reid was involved, he would get similar numbers" only confirms that the vote is going Mormon for Mormon as opposed to Mormon for best candidate. It would be an even greater affirmation if Reid was part of that vote because he is clearly not viable in this race.
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 06 February 2008
It's Mormon Republican going for Mormon Republican, and I'm guessing it would be Mormon Democrat going for Mormon Democrat. Perhaps there wouldn't be 90% for Harry Reid, but I'm sure there would be a lot higher percentage in Utah than elsewhere simply because people vote for candidates like them. (Also, I'm not talking about Reid in this race, but a hypothetical race in which he was in a similar position to Romney.)
Are you taking into account all of the votes for Obama, Clinton and Edwards were not for a Mormon? Why didn't those LDS Democrats cross party lines if they are solely concerned about religious affiliation?
Are you taking into account that McCain and Huckabee didn't campaign in the state and what impact that might have had?
Lastly, why, again, are we discussing this as being "cultish" and not the overwhelming support for Obama among those that share his skin color?
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 06 February 2008
... and not the overwhelming support for Obama among those that share his skin color ...
Considering that blacks have a propensity for voting democrat already, there is very little evidence to show their trend is unusual. Had Obama been a Republican and received an overwhelming vote from the south, that would have been statistically significant.
Are you taking into account all of the votes for Obama, Clinton and Edwards were not for a Mormon?
Generally speaking, conservative religious affiliations will not vote democrat. As such, the alignment to party makes perfect sense. It's equally plausible the "other" 48% of the votes came from non-Mormons. If you total all those votes [406376] then Romney received 62% of Utah's vote which is coincidentally a match for the Mormon population. So it still stands to reason the votes he received are purely based on religion.
Which leads back to the original question - "whether or not the like minded Mormon influence also means that a hypothetically elected Romney would lead the nation as a Mormon or as a secular leader who happens to be Mormon."
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 06 February 2008
Considering that blacks have a propensity for voting democrat already
In a vote between Obama and Clinton, their propensity for voting Democrat doesn't really matter.
it still stands to reason the votes he received are purely based on religion
Given your argument could be nothing but coincidence, I think you meant to say "it stands to irony."
I personally know many LDS Democrats, and while I know more LDS Republicans, the stereotype is just that.
whether or not the like minded Mormon influence also means that a hypothetically elected Romney would lead the nation as a Mormon or as a secular leader who happens to be Mormon
There is only one way I can explain why seemingly intelligent and discerning people can't seem to get past this nonsense: ignorance. People are afraid of what they don't understand.
Getting back to your question, though, I've already posted my thoughts on this in another thread. To sum them up, the evidence surrounding the LDS Church and Mitt Romney does not point to any tendency of interference in his ability to be both a Mormon and an effective, secular President.
Oh, and by the way, another item you're not taking into account is that only 14% of Mormons live in Utah.
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 06 February 2008
Just curious - from the 14% of mormons living in Utah, what is the concetration of power and influence? This sounds very conspiracy-like, but I have my theory that - all mysticism aside - organized religion is nothing but a big social network/or club. If you belong, you will benefit from the support of the big wigs big time. Maybe. This is just speculation, though.
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 06 February 2008
Do you mean the power/influence of the Utah Mormons on the LDS Church in general? To answer, I'll have to explain some about Church organization.
At the top, you have the First Presidency, made up of the Prophet and two counselors, and then the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. These 15 men probably live in Salt Lake City or close by.
Under that are the Quorums of the Seventy, of which there are eight. These live all over the globe. The first and second have general authority in the Church, but the third through eighth live and have geographical authority as follows:
From there you get into the mission organization and then stakes and wards - all of which are organized with leaders who live on-site and, where possible, are called from local membership.
Getting back to your question, then, those in the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve probably need to live in Salt Lake City or close by. Some, like Elder Uchtdorf, are not from Utah but must move there. (As a side note, while searching around, I found an interesting statistic: There have been 11 Apostles not born in the United States. Elder Uchdorf was the 11th, and the 101st Apostle overall.) The 1st and 2nd Quorums of the Twelve may feel the same need, but I'm not sure.
After that, however, the concentration of "power" is no more than the membership requires. In other words, every ward has a Bishopric and other leaders, each group of wards has a Stake Presidency and other leaders, each group of Stakes and Missions has an Area Presidency which includes members of the 3rd through 8th Quorums of the Seventy.
The influence of a Bishop in Utah is just the same as a Bishop in Brazil: one ward. The influence of a Stake President is one Stake, an Area President one Area, a father one family, etc.
Does that answer your question?
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 06 February 2008
I came up with more questions regarding LSD stats:
1) Is Utah the state with the largest Mormon population?
2) Is Utah the state with the largest Mormon concentration?
It doesn't tell me anything if you have a state of 2 million and 14% of all Mormon population is 1.89M ... just wondering... I am sure there is plenty of data out therem, but I hoped you had a ready answer....
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 06 February 2008
The Wikipedia article on the membership statistics of the LDS Church seems to be a good resource. In answer to your questions, though - yes, and yes.
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 06 February 2008
62% of Utah is Mormon according to the Wikipedia article in the comments above. So while that may only represent 14% of Mormon's as a whole, the other 86% are diluted across the rest of the US and do not have sway power in terms of turning delegates as a simple collective group. Unless in Utah (at the moment), they are just a minority.
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by jandaman :: NR5 :: on 06 February 2008
actually, it say 70% with the next highest being idaho at 26%.
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 06 February 2008
In the body of the Wikipedia article on Utah, A SLC Tribune article is referenced in claiming, "As of 2007, the percentage of Utahns that are counted as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is 60.7 percent of the state's population."
RE: Bidirectional Concerns of Influence by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 06 February 2008
the other 86% are diluted across the rest of the US
Actually, less than half of the Church lives in the U.S. So, 14% in Utah, less than 36% in the rest of the U.S., and more than 50% diluted across the rest of the world.