Are anti-Mormons to blame for Romney's failure?
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:31 am
Over at MAD the Mormons are going nuts, trying to blame anyone except Romney for his own failure.
David Bokovoy suggested that tornados struck the Huckabee states the morning after Super Tuesday, as a sign from God. But then when pressed to clarify his position, he calmed down and retracted it. Dan Peterson ran to his defense while crying persecution and posting weba rticles written by non-Mormon Republicans who speculate the Baptists had some part in Romney's loss.
While I can understand why persecution ridden Mormons would see sympathy from outside journalists as something appealing, they keep ignoring the elephant in the room that undermines the point they're trying to make. If Evangelicals are bigots for not voting for a Mormon, then Mormons are also bigots for refusing to vote for an Evangelical minister. The results from Utah and its border states show a tremendous distate for Huckabee. Romney creamed Huckabee in Utah by an 89% margin. Huckabee only got 1% of the vote, his worst performance anywhere. In other border states that margin of victory for Romney was anywhere between 30 and 50%. Yet, Huckabee beats Romney slightly by a measly 3% margin in a few Bible Belt states (even losing one -Florida- to Romney), and all hell breaks loose as the Mormons are crying foul play. Bokovoy and others are becoming emotionally unhinged over this tragic event, calling Huckabee and his crowd, "evil" and "sick."
Mormons can only be grateful that no polls were given in those regions, asking the Mormon groups if they were willing to vote for an Evangelical minister. From what I can surmise online, Mormons aren't happy with Evangelical ministers. If they even make an appearance at a location where some book critical of the LDS faith happened to have been "passed out," then there is the guilt by association game. Nevermind the fact that it is automatically taken for granted that any book that criticizes the LDS faith is considered proof of bigotry.
I haven't met a single Mormon who would vote for an Evangelical minister, and nobody here seems to know of any other Mormon who voted for Huckabee. The "Mormons are conservatives and Huckabee isn't conservative" isn't a valid excuse, because you see Mormons voting for Hillary, Obama and even the whacko Ron Paul, but never Huckabee. That's bigotry folks.
While it has been expressed many times online by Mormons that they see priestcrafts and the works of satan in Evangelical ministers, nobody seems to consider it bigotry. Just look at the numbers folks. The real reason they're upset is because Mormons do not account for 1/4 of the US population (and they never will) so they are not in a position to throw around their weight the way Evangelicals are. Mormonism isn't big enough to start with the tough talk as it did back in the days of Brigham Young, when he was running a society comprised mainly of Mormons and had theocratic tendencies. It has little choice but to lay low and claim victim status in an effort to garner support and consolidate expressed sympathies from others. This is just a sly technique the same as would be used by any no-name politician.
Now the article linked by Dan Peterson brings up the Baptist missionary effort in Utah as an example of bigotry. So 3,000 volunteers marched through Utah for a month and that's bigotry? What about the tens of thousands of Mormons who have marched through the Bible Belt over the past century while trying to convince Evangelicals that theirs is an apostate or (as it has been recently described on this forum) a "man made" faith?
The Southern States meant nothing in the broad scheme of things. This is what nobody here seems to comprehend. This is about simple mathematics. Give all the southern states to Romney, and he is still hundreds of delegates behind McCain. He has no chance, which is why he called it quits.
The connections they are trying to make between Romney's failure as a politician, and the Evangelical influence, simply will not stand up to scrutiny. Let's begin with the obvious.
Huckabee gave a speech at First Baptist Church of Woodstock last sunday. I attended. This is the largest Baptist Church on the planet. The pastor there (Johnny Hunt) is anti-Mormon. My parents occassionally attend because it is only two miles down the road, but most everyone within a 10 mile radius attends that church. The place is like Disneyland it is so huge, and it sits on the border of Cobb and Cherokee counties.
Anyway, my parents live in Cobb county so I found it interesting that Huckabee didn't beat Romney in this county. In fact, Romney beat Huckabee by a 10% margin, winning 33,000 votes to Huckabee's 22,000. In the smaller Cherokee county that borders Cobb, Huckabee won, but only by 1,500 votes. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... val=GAREP4)
Now they're telling me that the greater Atlanta area and the entire state of Georgia area was influenced by this, when it couldn't even influence its immediate residential areas? Let's take a couple more examples of prominent anti-Mormon areas.
In Orange county California, which is home to notorious anti-Mormons like Hank Hannegraff (who runs the Bible answer Man radio show),and ministries run by Ed Decker (Ex-Mormons for Jesus) and the late Walter Martin, just how did the anti-Mormons influence the voters? Well, it was a slaughter, but in favor of Romney, who won 115,000 votes to Huckabee's measlel 33,000. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... val=CAREP3) In Maricopa county Arizona, home to Concerned Christians, Romney managed to beat Huckabee by winning four times the votes (100,000 to 25,000).
How can this be if what they're saying is true?
You see the facts outweigh whatever fantasies a poorly developed persecution complex might create. At this website the article argues that the 43% of the Americans who said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, are most likely democrats: http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/200 ... igots.html
It also argues that proper understanding of the figures suggest that 83% of Evangelicals would vote for a Mormon.
That 53% figure Mormon apologists love to pull out comes from a 2006 poll, which was before Romney really started making his case before the American people. The idea of a Mormon President seems less realistic at that time. Since then the situation has changed, the same way it changed for John F. Kennedy after he explained how his Catholicism wouldn't interfere with his job. In 1960 a poll said 35% of America wouldn't vote for a Catholic, yet he won. To prove the political landscape has changed, in this recent online poll involving more than 200,000 respondents, 94% of Americans said they would vote for a Mormon: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15936002/
I also presume the rasmussen poll which said 50% of Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon, was dealing with Evangelicals who were attending Church at the time the survey was taken. Most Evangelicals aren't even active, so it would be dealing with a relatively narrow and insignificant strand within the Evangelical crowd. Not to mention the peer pressure that would be involved if this took place at Church.
And don't forget. If 50% said they'd never vote for a Mormon, that means 50% of them would.
Using whatever hyperbole and rhetoric one may, it is simply not plausible that 50% of the Mormons would ever vote for an Evangelical minister.
David Bokovoy suggested that tornados struck the Huckabee states the morning after Super Tuesday, as a sign from God. But then when pressed to clarify his position, he calmed down and retracted it. Dan Peterson ran to his defense while crying persecution and posting weba rticles written by non-Mormon Republicans who speculate the Baptists had some part in Romney's loss.
While I can understand why persecution ridden Mormons would see sympathy from outside journalists as something appealing, they keep ignoring the elephant in the room that undermines the point they're trying to make. If Evangelicals are bigots for not voting for a Mormon, then Mormons are also bigots for refusing to vote for an Evangelical minister. The results from Utah and its border states show a tremendous distate for Huckabee. Romney creamed Huckabee in Utah by an 89% margin. Huckabee only got 1% of the vote, his worst performance anywhere. In other border states that margin of victory for Romney was anywhere between 30 and 50%. Yet, Huckabee beats Romney slightly by a measly 3% margin in a few Bible Belt states (even losing one -Florida- to Romney), and all hell breaks loose as the Mormons are crying foul play. Bokovoy and others are becoming emotionally unhinged over this tragic event, calling Huckabee and his crowd, "evil" and "sick."
Mormons can only be grateful that no polls were given in those regions, asking the Mormon groups if they were willing to vote for an Evangelical minister. From what I can surmise online, Mormons aren't happy with Evangelical ministers. If they even make an appearance at a location where some book critical of the LDS faith happened to have been "passed out," then there is the guilt by association game. Nevermind the fact that it is automatically taken for granted that any book that criticizes the LDS faith is considered proof of bigotry.
I haven't met a single Mormon who would vote for an Evangelical minister, and nobody here seems to know of any other Mormon who voted for Huckabee. The "Mormons are conservatives and Huckabee isn't conservative" isn't a valid excuse, because you see Mormons voting for Hillary, Obama and even the whacko Ron Paul, but never Huckabee. That's bigotry folks.
While it has been expressed many times online by Mormons that they see priestcrafts and the works of satan in Evangelical ministers, nobody seems to consider it bigotry. Just look at the numbers folks. The real reason they're upset is because Mormons do not account for 1/4 of the US population (and they never will) so they are not in a position to throw around their weight the way Evangelicals are. Mormonism isn't big enough to start with the tough talk as it did back in the days of Brigham Young, when he was running a society comprised mainly of Mormons and had theocratic tendencies. It has little choice but to lay low and claim victim status in an effort to garner support and consolidate expressed sympathies from others. This is just a sly technique the same as would be used by any no-name politician.
Now the article linked by Dan Peterson brings up the Baptist missionary effort in Utah as an example of bigotry. So 3,000 volunteers marched through Utah for a month and that's bigotry? What about the tens of thousands of Mormons who have marched through the Bible Belt over the past century while trying to convince Evangelicals that theirs is an apostate or (as it has been recently described on this forum) a "man made" faith?
The Southern States meant nothing in the broad scheme of things. This is what nobody here seems to comprehend. This is about simple mathematics. Give all the southern states to Romney, and he is still hundreds of delegates behind McCain. He has no chance, which is why he called it quits.
The connections they are trying to make between Romney's failure as a politician, and the Evangelical influence, simply will not stand up to scrutiny. Let's begin with the obvious.
Huckabee gave a speech at First Baptist Church of Woodstock last sunday. I attended. This is the largest Baptist Church on the planet. The pastor there (Johnny Hunt) is anti-Mormon. My parents occassionally attend because it is only two miles down the road, but most everyone within a 10 mile radius attends that church. The place is like Disneyland it is so huge, and it sits on the border of Cobb and Cherokee counties.
Anyway, my parents live in Cobb county so I found it interesting that Huckabee didn't beat Romney in this county. In fact, Romney beat Huckabee by a 10% margin, winning 33,000 votes to Huckabee's 22,000. In the smaller Cherokee county that borders Cobb, Huckabee won, but only by 1,500 votes. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... val=GAREP4)
Now they're telling me that the greater Atlanta area and the entire state of Georgia area was influenced by this, when it couldn't even influence its immediate residential areas? Let's take a couple more examples of prominent anti-Mormon areas.
In Orange county California, which is home to notorious anti-Mormons like Hank Hannegraff (who runs the Bible answer Man radio show),and ministries run by Ed Decker (Ex-Mormons for Jesus) and the late Walter Martin, just how did the anti-Mormons influence the voters? Well, it was a slaughter, but in favor of Romney, who won 115,000 votes to Huckabee's measlel 33,000. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... val=CAREP3) In Maricopa county Arizona, home to Concerned Christians, Romney managed to beat Huckabee by winning four times the votes (100,000 to 25,000).
How can this be if what they're saying is true?
You see the facts outweigh whatever fantasies a poorly developed persecution complex might create. At this website the article argues that the 43% of the Americans who said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, are most likely democrats: http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/200 ... igots.html
It also argues that proper understanding of the figures suggest that 83% of Evangelicals would vote for a Mormon.
That 53% figure Mormon apologists love to pull out comes from a 2006 poll, which was before Romney really started making his case before the American people. The idea of a Mormon President seems less realistic at that time. Since then the situation has changed, the same way it changed for John F. Kennedy after he explained how his Catholicism wouldn't interfere with his job. In 1960 a poll said 35% of America wouldn't vote for a Catholic, yet he won. To prove the political landscape has changed, in this recent online poll involving more than 200,000 respondents, 94% of Americans said they would vote for a Mormon: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15936002/
I also presume the rasmussen poll which said 50% of Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon, was dealing with Evangelicals who were attending Church at the time the survey was taken. Most Evangelicals aren't even active, so it would be dealing with a relatively narrow and insignificant strand within the Evangelical crowd. Not to mention the peer pressure that would be involved if this took place at Church.
And don't forget. If 50% said they'd never vote for a Mormon, that means 50% of them would.
Using whatever hyperbole and rhetoric one may, it is simply not plausible that 50% of the Mormons would ever vote for an Evangelical minister.