Skip to comments.Vanderbilt poll ...; Political scientist says anti-Mormon bias finds cover
Posted on 01/19/2008 12:27:37 PM PST by Reaganesque
Bias against Mitt Romneys religion is one of the reasons that the tag flip-flopper sticks with the former Massachusetts governor but not his Republican opponents, according to Vanderbilt political scientist John Geer. There is no question that Romney has changed his positions on some issues, but so have some of the other candidates, Geer said. Why does the label stick to Romney but not his opponents? At least some of the answer lies in Romneys Mormon beliefs.
Geer and colleagues Brett Benson of Vanderbilt and Jennifer Merolla of Claremont Graduate University designed an Internet survey to assess bias against Mormons, how best to combat it and its potential impact on the nomination process and general election campaign.
We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romneys Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue, Benson said. Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney. Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.
The poll, which was conducted by Polimetrix, included an oversample of Southern Evangelicals that Geer said measured bias with far more precision than previous efforts. The survey shows that 50 percent of conservative Evangelicals evaluate a moderate Christian candidate more positively than a conservative Mormon candidate.
The studys findings suggest that criticizing Romney for flip-flopping is an effective campaign strategy because it sticks with two different groups: those who are genuinely concerned about Romneys shifts on certain issues and those who use the label as cover for the fact that they do not want to vote for a Mormon for president.
As the campaign continues to unfold, these data become increasingly relevant as the Republicans choose a presidential nominee, Geer said.
I think it is possible. Ann Coulter didn’t find the flip flops that the FR 14 do. Huck gets a pass on his flip/flops occurring the same day.
and our only MSM Fox News that I am weaning myself of says Mitt’s win is in large part due to the mormons living there ....what 9%? oh my.
Ping to read later.
As a Mormon with no bias.. it’s amazing how a former Stake President could be ambivalent about Abortion over so many years. His statement about “seeing” Martin Luther King marching, etc..
My sister is a key supporter of his in California, but him and Ron Paul are the only Repubs I don’t like.
There’s a clip on YouTube from Mitt’s 1994 debate against Fatboy Kennedy for the Senate seat.
But of that 1+hour debate (which I watched in full, live back then) the anti-Mitt Evangelicals (”Values Voters” ha ha) have included only a 1 minute excerpt, in which Mitt allegedly is flip-flopping on (guess what?) Abortion.
But Mitt is clearly saying “I’m personally against it” but he’ll defend it because it’s the law.
Unfortunate he had to take that position, but this is in a Senate run against the extremely venal Fatboy in the most liberal state in the USA. What else was he to say?
If that’s the best the Social Conservatives and Evangelicals and “Values Voters” (ha ha) can produce from thatentire debate, it must be pretty thin-pickings on the flip-flopping front.
|Well there you have it folks. If you are one of the 80% of Freepers who oppose Mitt Romney, Reaganesque has declared you an anti-Mormon bigot. Of course previously Mittbots only impugned the good name of individual Freepers one at a time. Having a thread to declare this blanket designation is quite a bit more efficient.
Oh, and Go Pats!
Ann Coulter.., yes I guess she is trying to find someone to support. This is the first time I have seen her somewhat sheepish when she talks about her opinions.. she seems a bit unsure of herself.
This image is in poor taste.. please don’t post something like this. Even Mitt would not like it.
>>>>the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.
Odd coincidence I guess, but an older and completely unrelated Pew poll showed that about 55 to 60 percent of Evangelicals (”Values Voters” ???) would expressly NOT vote for Mitt.
Kind of confirms their religious bigotry.
.... also - if Obama gets the Dem nomination .... or even if he and Hillary partner-up - then it will be hard for the Mormon issue to ring very loud... since Barry Hussein Obama also has a religious label to deal with
As a person of hindu faith, and therefore neutral in this mormon vs. evangelical tussle, I find it remarkable that Romney is repeatedly called a flip-flopper mainly on his pro-abortio to pro-life flip, yet Huckabee flip-flops almost every day from his record in Arkansas and very few here are incensed.
So to this hindu person, and a lifelong republican, there is but one conclusion...there is a strong anti-mormon bias here. I hope by the time my 16 year old daughter decides to run for president, the country will have evolved for the better.
And I always thought this country was formed on freedom of religion, which is why I fell in love with it.
I agree. THere are a ton of reasons not to support Mitt.. bigotry of his faith is an unnecessary thing.
His ambivalence on abortion is #1. Even Rudi’s position is better, even with his occasional nuiance. Mitt is though just totally lacking genuineness.
>>>>>could be ambivalent about Abortion over so many years.
I’ve never heard him being ambivalent, and this goes back to when he was running for Senate against Fatboy.
He’s always said “I’m against it personally, and now here is the law, which I would be sworn to uphold.”
“Unfortunate he had to take that position, but this is in a Senate run against the extremely venal Fatboy in the most liberal state in the USA. What else was he to say?”
Why is Mitt running for office in that state then? He could move somewhere else and be honest about his views or run in Mass and be a Clinton-type word parser. Honestly, his parsing is not limited to abortion. He just doesn’t have a core. His main-stream conservative values are a means, not an end for him.
The graphic above states that even if Christ himself descended from above and endorsed Mitt Romney, there would be Freepers who would claim that Christ was either a RINO, bought off or just plain stupid. That’s what’s offensive. It doesn’t matter who endorses Mitt, it doesn’t matter what Mitt says or does or has done in the past. There is a small but devoted group of Freepers who hate his guts regardless of fact. There are even those here on FR who have hinted that Romney may be the anti-Christ. And yet, my humorous graphic is offensive. I’ll have to live with that, I guess.
>>>>>They can attack fundamentalist Christians just fine, but being a Mormon almost qualifies you as being Multicultural.
The Evangelicals, Values Voters, Social Conservatives, and fundamentalists support the Huckster who allegedly is “one of them”, but is also a clown and a Democrat.
They open themselves to attack.
It takes something very beautiful (within our faith and even some without), and puts it here where it doesn’t belong in this context.
If you were posting it in a religious discussion to show inspiration you could post it and I would like it. Putting Mitt on it like that is not something the church would support. It’s just the wrong context and the manipulation is even worse.