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.
>>>>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!:)
|I always say it with a smile, as I pointed out in #28. *hug*
U.S. Army Retired
I worked for a company (and laid off) by a company that Bain took over in Salt Lake in the 80s. I saw alot of the Bain guys coming in as VPs. Nothing against Romney, but he fits the mold of the guys I saw there.
I’m sure Romney did fine in his job, but this kind of Bain culture was not something I have fond memories of.
That could be part of the answer. The other problem, I think, is that Romney usually takes a position unequivocally, so when he changes it, the change is easy to spot. Thompson, on the other hand, at least in the past, tended to use equivocal and weasly language when talking about, say, abortion, so his flip-flop becomes much less apparent.
If you want to see parsing, check out the way Thompson was talking about abortion during his 1994 Senate campaign.
What I read stated that 26% of those who accused Romney of FF also cited his religion as a point of opposition. If one applied that to Freepers, one could say that 1/4 of the 80% of Freepers who oppose Romney, or about 20%, might have an issue with his religion. I think that sounds too high. I am not a Mormon. Objectively however, it appears to me as if more than a few Republicans really are anti Mormon. This has surprised me.
Tsk, Tsk....however, THIS is just fine, isn't it?
John Podhoretz, noting that Romney appears to have won 94 percent of Mormons in Nevada, comments: "(Forget Mike Huckabees claim on evangelicals; a number like that suggests Romney is this years unqualified king of identity politics.)"
Just a coincidence, isn't it?
I have been stating for monthst that Mitt's religion is a factor in the race. Just wait until the general rolls around and the Clinton machine and MSM get REALLY started, if we are unlucky enough that Mitt gets the nomination...say hello to President Hillary.
Ok, you as a hindu person you may not have been reading the posts here on MH flip flops.
Hes always said Im against it personally,
No, he has not.
LOL.... Best line of the Day.
Incidentally since the above graphic seems to have generated some buzz I thought I'd point out that the painter of the orignal artwork used his wife's face for each of the angels sounding the trumpets. Look closely the angels are all the same. Now that's a classy artist. Paints a picture of devotion to his Lord and his beloved spouse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.