I still think that if social conservative leaders approve of Romney, he'll be fine, Mormon or no.

They have already shown signs that they are willing to do so. He is an attractive politician.

I think the fact that he's a massive flip-flopper on social issues, including abortion, will ultimately prove more damaging to Romney.

BTW, my guess is the poll numbers are even more bleak for Romney.

A lot of poll respondents are probably saying they would vote for a Mormon out of political correctness.

It's the same if you ask them would you vote for a black, Jew, woman, gay........etc.

I'd knock off 5-10% from the poll numbers.

In fact, 22% still say they won't vote for a Catholic in this poll!

McCain?

You mean John McArmageddon?

That oughta get a the rapture crowd to stand up and shout, Hallelujah!!

~OGD~

There is an obvious difference between anti-Catholic prejudice in 1960 and anti-Mormon prejudice today. Catholics in 1960 were a quarter of the population, so anti-Catholic prejudice could be largely offset by Catholic pride. Mormons are a much, much, smaller minority (and largely concentrated in a few small states that are not likely to be decisive in either the Republican primaries or the general election).

I have no reason to support Romney (lousy on policy, a poor politician and a missing governor) but the question and results are troubling.

The question is somewhat of a push poll. It leads a person to say they won't vote for a Morman (a largely unknown religion) and then leaves them with a conscious negative sense.

I watched Providence RI elect a mayor who is gay. His being gay just wasn't a big deal in the election. Yet I have to guess that without a real person in mind the Providence electorate would not have been enthusiastic about voting for a generic gay mayor.

So what does a poll say about electability?

[Prov mayor David Cicilline}

"I don't have poll numbers to back it up but I am guessing a lot of the anti Catholic vote was probably on the other side. And lets not forget JFK almost lost.

Problem for Romney is, I am guessing here, the anti Mormon vote is probably mostly on the GOP side."

The other factor is that in 1960 you didn't have a lot of Catholic Evangelizers out there trying to convert non-Catholics to Catholicism.

I don't see anything good about anti-Mormon bigotry. On the other hand, its a little hard to be anything more than barely sympathetic to conservative Mormon politicians who can't get Right Wing Christian support.

-Dave Adams-

I am glad to have your insight, haven't seen your comments for a while.

Your use of LDS/Mormon reminds me that I know better, having lived in Idaho, that appropriate nomenclature is LDS.

Let me wade into some deep waters.

LDS may be the polite term. But expanded it sets off alarm bells particularly among Evangelicals. "Latter Day Saints". Almost sounds like Mormons are claiming like they will be he only ones saved and everybody else will be "Left Behind". Well sorry but there is already a religious group inhabiting the American space that says "We love you as people, but we are going to be raptured and serve at the side of the Lord as warriors at Armageddon, and you are going to endure 1000 years of Tribulation suffering under the rule of the AntiChrist". These people are rightfully suspect of a group that explains that they are Christians just like anyone else but just happen to worship their faith based on a newer and better Christianity revealed on some golden plates sent by God to Illinois.

I live in a heavily Mormon area. The rest of my family lives in Boise where you can't drive three blocks without seeing a Temple. But friends Evangelicals don't much believe in Temples. Or Bishops. Or New Revelations to Joseph Smith. They have a Bible, they like its Perfection, they like that it is from God's Mouth to Your Ear. That they are expected to accept a presidential candidate that believes God had to add a supplement in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1843 cannot be expected to go down well.

Mormons are not bad people. Insular yes. Determined to spread their faith yes. But trust me Mormons do not want to have the fundamental beliefs of their faith spread across the nations newspapers. Jerry Falwell can sputter and spew but Mormonism cannot be assimilated into Fundamentalist Christianity. Mormons' vision of the after life is to say the least a little different than the typical Four Square Evangelical one. The only reason only 53% of evangelicals currently categorically rule out voting for a Mormon is because they don't know enough about Mormonism's central tenets.

Romney may delude himself into thinking that being a practicing Mormon is just about the same thing as being a lapsed Catholic, or that belonging to a sect that preaches "family values" is going to overcome some pretty serious fundamental belief system differences but I suspect he has another think coming.

Muslims venerate Jesus. They just believe he was a forerunner to the real deal in Mohammed. Mormons are pretty much sitting in the same seat as Muslims, they have a newer and better Revelation than that boring old New Testament thing. This may have flown in Massachusetts but Romney's apparent belief that he can just glide over the clouds and gain the support of the Republican base of evangelicals is to my mind delusional. They like the Christ they have.

....some degree of a broad view is essential for any hope of being able to take any semblence of truth from what is put out for public consumption.

What really concerns me is the distant happenings. Our society in general has so many pet themes and such a generally narrow and short view that I don't think even a percent of those actively involved (myself likely being outside that percent) that really have a good grounding in what is occuring collectively in the world. There's just so much we don't see. And what we do see is so often the same spots on the map.

Me too, me too, me too.

It is the main reason I have what some might see as a testy attitude towards blog triumphalism as to the blogosphere in its current form, with people seeking out like-minded communities for political bonding, activism and boosterism. It is also why I've been an advocate here in the past for more acceptance of various political persuasions commenting here. And, at the start, nationalities, which now seems a bit hopeless with the emphasis of the mother ship on the details of U.S. politics, but at one time, with a couple of European contributors, seemed quite possible.

There's nothing wrong with political activism, it's just that it doesn't solve the purpose of breaking out of the cycle of "hot news topic of day" or "hot news topic of year" and moving towards bigger world perspectives. Even the specialization thing is insidious; if you bounce around the liberal blogosphere reading about atrocity after boondoogle in Iraq for several weeks, for example, it's easy to get a real warped perspective about it being close to causing Armaggedon, when, in actuality, a lot of equivalent things were happening at exactly the same time in countries in Africa.

It's not that perfection is necessary and it's not that it has never been done: a paper like The New York Times manages to present a good balanced smattering of what's going on around the world everyday, putting the headline stories in perspective. But the blogosphere in general still seems to be reinforcing the TV news model of hottest topics with added excessive rhetoric as decided by ratings. (It's important to note that Ted Turner's CNN did not always bow to that.) Example: the 40 or so blog entries here on Cheney's hunting accident, or how everyone here drop Iraq news like a hot potato during Katrina.

I'm quite aware that the feeding frenzy model is operative around the world and not just the U.S., it's just that I had hopes that the internet would help break it, not feed it more. It's not going to until people stop wanting to get their news interpretation from like-minded "communities." Politic activism and boosterism with ostracism of the "other" is a blogosphere goal that works at odds with getting a good perspective of world news, and conequently, what one's leaders should do about it, unless you bounce around to hundreds of blogs all the time.

Measuring the degree of like vs. unlike, I think Mormons probably actually do occupy a position somewhat closer to mainline Protestants and Catholics than Muslims do, but I think they are still closer to Muslims in terms of how unlike they are.

(I'm sort of thinking of how comparisons of ideology can place politicians in a spectrum from, say, Ted Kennedy on the left to Rick Santorum on the right, as well as of the belief-o-matic on belief.net)

You might say that if Catholics and Protestants are at 1 and 2 and Muslims are at 10, Mormons are at 7 or 8.