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.
>>>>Clinton-type word parser. Honestly, his parsing is not limited to abortion.
I was a Mass resident and a republican and conservative at the time.
He was not “parsing”, he was explaining why he was between a rock and a hard place.
I thought his position was unfortunate but certainly it was not ambiguous.
Mitt won the Evangelical vote in Michigan. Bible thumpers vote for Mormons all the time in Arizona. This whole “Evangelicals won’t vote for a Mormon” is mostly an invention of the press. The line is thrown around not because Evangelicals hate Mormons, but because the press hates Evangelicals.
|Mitt's not the Anti-Christ. I should know as one Mittbot told me I was a Son of Perdition.
U.S. Army Retired
What I am talking about primarily is his realizing right before his Presidential run about his beliefs on abortion(i.e., his 2004 Harvard Stem Cell research meeting). My gosh, a former Stake President aged 55 needs to reach this far in his life to figure out his position on life and abortion? Give me a break.
I agree with you.. I think the press hates Evangelicals more than Evangelicals dislike or hate Mormons. However, there are some pretty hardlined Mormon haters on this forum.. perhaps 20% of the Freepers sympathize with them. THey may create the impression of a higher count.
Well, Mormon Freepers make mistakes or say the wrong things. I hope you can overlook that. We attack each other for sport on this forum too much.
|You are precisely right on that issue and his shallowness and lack of core convictions stretches to a number of social issues. And in that regard he is VERY un-LDS. They tend to have firm core convictions on social issues that are right in line with other conservatives. If he were any other religious faith he would have very little support among LDS.
U.S. Army Retired
|Oh definitely. I often joke with that particular Freeper about it as we continue to argue over the Romney candidacy.
U.S. Army Retired
Now THAT is good.
Well of course not. They represent states where a lot of voters are Mormon. Very unlikely either one could have been elected from South Carolina. Or lots of other states.
Yes. Duncan Hunter doesn’t have Mitt’s money.. otherwise he would be a contender.
Fred Thompson has just blown it. He had all the potential momentum before he entered the race. He has just gone lazy since announcing. Too bad, I think he had Reagan potentiall too. He just lacked motivation and a the race was crowed too with various candidates ahead of him. Reagan was really in a strong position.. hard to member back to 1980?
I’m sorry you feel that way.
“Well of course not. They represent states where a lot of voters are Mormon. Very unlikely either one could have been elected from South Carolina. Or lots of other states.”
That says a lot about S. Carolina — none of it good.
I agree! I add one more word: it must be pretty thin-picking nit-pickings on the flip-flopping front.
You stop that!:)