Gallup has released their 2/23 results for their daily tracking poll. It does NOT contain any data effected by the debate last night. As always, the graphics shown are obtained from Gallup’s website.
Today could be sum up as follows: Romney, Gingrich and Paul all push and remain the same. Santorum slips a percentage point.
Rick Santorum extends his slide to two days by slipping a point to 34%.
Yes, Mitt Romney remained the same at 27%, but with Santorum’s slip Mitt is now within 7 percentage points of the lead.
Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul remain at 15% and 10% respectively.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:02 pm
What’s the point?
Give em hell Mitt!
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Mitt should start going up. After Tuesday, he should go up considerably.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Then Santorum has peaked.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Ah, we’re starting to see the shape of Santorum’s fall. Love it.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Can’t wait for the polls next week and the week after!!!!
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Craziest nomination ever.
Once Restore Our Future gets done with Santorum, they ought to run some attack ads on Christie, Daniels, Jeb, and Palin just to end the whole borkered convention discussion. Yes, I mean borkered. All the good candidates will have been “borked” and we will settle on some inoffensive, uncharasmatic candidate.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:17 pm
5.
And it only gets better if Romney wins both Michigan and Arizona. It will be the death of Santorum….though I see the RomNots try to revive Gingrich, but then he will only crash and burn too.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:18 pm
I wouldn’t say that Santorum has peaked just yet. Santorum’s grassroots support has only just begun to help him. He’ll start moving back up again before it’s too late.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Granny,
Santorum lost a lot of grassroots enthusiasm after last night’s debate. He came off just like another DC insider, which he is.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:20 pm
santorum went down a little because Newt went up a little, they both draw from the same poll of voters.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Have ya’ll seen the PJ Media poll that polled current candidates and some of the “brokered convention” favorites against Obama?
The two that polled best against Obama might surprise you.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:25 pm
10
Uh-huh. Santorum didn’t go down because he sucks, he went down because Newt is so awesome.
LOL.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:25 pm
“Santorum lost a lot of grassroots enthusiasm after last night’s debate.”
Wrong! Rick’s Army has just begun.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:29 pm
13
The Satan Resistance Army?
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:30 pm
The debate will have zero impact on Michigan. Was Santorum fabulous? No. Neither was Romney. Sure, he got a few good shots in, but he did nothing to alleviate concerns that conservatives have had over the past 6 years.
I’m calling Michigan for Santorum. I would ask those who feel the need to ridicule my prediction to bookmark this post.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:30 pm
13. How does Rick’s Army feel about mainline Protestants being the demise of America? Not sure how the non-religious got off the hook, but hey…let’s deface the Protestants!
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Does someone mind explaining this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iGX_7lMcEYI
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:33 pm
The Satan Resistance Army?
No, don’t confuse Rick’s Army with the Christian Army even though some of us have enlisted in both.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:35 pm
MC,
I don’t know why but that video reminded me of opposing teams shaking hands after a good game.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“How does Rick’s Army feel about mainline Protestants being the demise of America?”
It hasn’t been discussed and there are plenty more things more important than wasting our time on that.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:40 pm
granny T, So Huck’s Army has morphed in to Rick’s Army.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:42 pm
When you need an army against fellow GOP, it will be hard to get anyone excited about your guy.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:43 pm
*else*
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:44 pm
19
It reminded me of an angry, pompous jackass taking out his anger on an old, defenseless man.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:51 pm
I think Romney and Santorum are going to be about even by the time Michigan and Arizona vote. Then when Santorum loses both, Romney will surge again, and possibly Gingrich.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:52 pm
17. Santorum must have wanted to prove he wasn’t a fake.
24. That too.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Historically, I am guessing there have been very few, if any, times when 3
candidates were drawing at least 15% at this point in a GOP primary and 4 with
at least 10%. And there is one explanation – superpacs. That also means this
race will only end when one or more sugardaddies withdraws support given that
ego prevents the candidates themselves from withdrawing.
That said, it is still very early.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:00 pm
15
Debates have been everything in this primary. It’s wishful thinking on your part to think this debate didn’t matter. That’s what Newt supporters said during the FL debates.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:04 pm
I think it was yesterday on FNCs “The Five” when Dana Perino questioned why Santorum was receiving support now rather than 10 or so months ago. She concluded that they weren’t voting for Santorum, they were voting against Romney.
Nobody is excited about Santorum and the debate ended him last night. His new support comes from a very fickle voting block… and which he was barley holding onto in the first place.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:12 pm
MassCon,
That looked like an enthusiastic handshake to me.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Anyone know of any Michigan polls that will be released tonight or tomorrow? Looking forward to seeing some evidence of Romney starting to pull away from Santorum.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Truth,
“Historically, I am guessing there have been very few, if any, times when 3
candidates were drawing at least 15% at this point in a GOP primary and 4 with
at least 10%. And there is one explanation”
A pathetic field of candidates.
But somebody has to win. That’s the mind boggling part.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Looking at this chart, it would appear that Romney’s trending upwards. His old “floor” of 20 was replaced by a floor of 25, then it became a floor of 27. The next floor will be a floor of 30.
If I were looking at these guys as Stocks, I’d buy Romney.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:17 pm
27.
>>Historically, I am guessing there have been very few, if any, times when 3
candidates were drawing at least 15% at this point in a GOP primary and 4 with
at least 10%. And there is one explanation – superpacs.
That may be part of it but the bigger reasons are a lot less nefarious but far more stupid, proportional delegates combined with endless debates. There’s simply no reason for a candidate to get out of the race right now, as long as they can afford a plane ticket to the next debate why not hang around?
Why the RNC thought this was a good idea when we are trying to take out an incumbent President is beyond me. Oh wait, I almost forgot, Stupid Party.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Boomer,
I think the debates are a part of it as well. Good call there.
I don’t think the proportional delegates have anything to do with it at this point. The total number allocated is still small, and most of the early contests have always been proportional, and the race is usually decided LOOONG before anyone gets close to a mathematical lock anyway.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Nobody cares about delegate totals now anyway.
Now, if it’s still close a month or two from now, then I’d say proportional allocation has played some role in keeping it close, as delegates will matter in any contest that is still close in late April.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:33 pm
I think it was yesterday on FNCs “The Five” when Dana Perino questioned why Santorum was receiving support now rather than 10 or so months ago.
And then there were those of us that hadn’t picked any one candidate over the rest until so many that might have had a chance of getting us on board started dropping out…Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann…there isn’t a whole lot left to choose from. And contrary to the spewed Mormon bigotry – some of us still do voters match quizzes and research to decide who to vote for.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Matt- I forgot one other detail. Every single remaining candidate has no political future if they don’t win this race and the only ones who potentially do have already dropped out. Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, all either have a current and future political future or in the case of Huntsman believe they do.
This is the last roundup for Romney, Santorum and Newt and Paul has already announced he is retiring.
There is just no reason for any of them to leave the race, particularly Newt and Santorum who will return to DC if they loose with an increased profile for their, ahem, consulting businesses.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:39 pm
IN OTHER NEWS:
Pat Toomey praises Romney’s plan while calling Santorum-Spector “Ancient History.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/toomey-hearts-romney-tax-plan-says-santorumspecter-115337.html
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Who said, “The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.” He referred to Marxism-Leninism as “the second oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, ‘Ye shall be as gods.’” ?
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Boomer,
Another keen observation. That had never occurred to me before.
But you’re right. This is probably the last hurrah for all four. Santorum might have a future again, but only because he’s come this far. Had he not been so desperate, he probably would have dropped out before he got traction.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:48 pm
It will be interesting to see how last nights revelations affect tRick Santorum’s numbers tomorrow.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:49 pm
I would like to know the RNC’s real motive behind a proportional allocation of
delegates. Of course, one explanation is that they wanted to duplicated Obama-Clinton,
failing to understand that was an unusual circumstance. But a second motivation
may have been to lessen the importance of the early states. I think it is fair to say
IA, NH and SC will not determine the nominee. As strange as it sounds, Michigan
may pick the nominee.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:55 pm
40. So the fight for the nomination is a religious war in our own party?? After we kill off all the people who have a slightly different view of Christianity, then we attack Obama with fewer numbers? I like it, if I am Obama.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Truth,
Part of it was to lessen the significance of the early states. Many of the latter states have been bellyaching for years that they don’t have enough say.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:55 pm
41- Is it the Lord God?
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:58 pm
43
The long contest benefited Obama and Clinton because they were both potentially historic presidents running for an enthusiastic party.
The RNC made a huge mistake in thinking the long contest would benefit us. Totally different.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:59 pm
44 — It’s always been a religious war within this party. It’s becoming more and more evident what the ABR crowd has been all about. It’s not for fiscal sanity, balanced budgets, social conservatism, etc. It has been all a cover for what the movement I really about — religious bigotry.
It’s truly amazing how this group has jumped from one candidate to the next, giving them their undying support but before they knew ANYTHING about their record. None of that mattered to them — because their name was NOT ROMNEY.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Even before the debate, the numbers were moving towards Romney. After the debate, the accelerator will get jammed to the floor. I also see at least 5% of Santorum’s current support moving to Newt alone, which will put Romney in a greater lead.
Throw in two big wins with AZ and Michigan, and I see Romney with a commanding lead nationally. Romney though needs to take EVERY contest after Super Tuesday serious until the other candidates withdraw or the math becomes impossible.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:05 pm
49. I know sad
and what do we end up with for all this? Obama
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:06 pm
47 — In all honesty, I thought it was grossly unfair how many of the larger states like Florida, New York, etc were winner-take-all so early in the game. McCain ran away will the nomination just because he won Florida. It gave him all the momentum to going into Super Tuesday.
I think this method is actually better for the process because more states will have their say and the candidate will be properly vetted. I do also think this hinges on Michigan. If Romney wins MI I think he will finally runaway with the nomination. He already is a lock to win 4 of the 10 states on Super Tuesday (MA, ID, VA, and VT). He likely will also pick up Alaska. The remaining victories will be divided between Santy and Grinch in ND, GA, TN, OK, and OH. And Santorum does not even qualify for delegates in Congressional districts in TN and OH.
Texas is likely now going to be one of the very last states as well, one that both Santy and Grinch were hoping to win big in. By that time, they will probably realize that they will not have enough delegates to win and will drop out.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Firecracker,
Seriously, stop with the religious baiting. Of all the candidates Romney has the fewest who “strongly dislike” him, at about 6%.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:07 pm
“It’s always been a religious war within this party. It’s becoming more and more evident what the ABR crowd has been all about. It’s not for fiscal sanity, balanced budgets, social conservatism, etc. It has been all a cover for what the movement I really about — religious bigotry.”
For a small segment of it – yes. As a whole, though, sorry…nope. If that was the way things were, they would have stuck with Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann. But the fact remains that the last two ABRs have been Roman Catholics.
Far more likely, IMO, is the fact that the Tea Party is convinced they’re being screwed by people in power. so anyone in power, or anyone with the support of people in power, or anyone who is rumored to have the support of people in power, or anyone who looks like someone who might have the support of people in power – yeah, they’re against them.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:08 pm
49 – The money will also come pouring in for Romney and will dry out for Santy and Grinch.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:08 pm
48 not 49
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:09 pm
52 — Care to tell that to Kavon? He said something in one of his most recent posts that religious possibly has somethign to do with Santorum’s (ABR’s) rise in the polls.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Firecracker,
Nice way of stopping good conversations among posters…good job.
Congrats.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:10 pm
#48 I have thought this for awhile. When you look at the POTUS qualifications for Romney and Santorum, it’s hard to figure out why anyone is supporting the insider Santorum unless it’s not about qualifications at all.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Cracker,
Kavon doesn’t bring it up incessantly, like you do.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:14 pm
ConInd,
It depends on what you want to call “qualifications.”
Some people see pandering and a lack of core convictions as disqualifying.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:15 pm
MK is more on target in #53
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:15 pm
57 — You’re welcome!
Sorry, if the truth hurts SMACK.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Consrvative Independent – Firecracker,
So I’m not supporting Mitt at this time because I’m a biogot?
Even though I trash all the Mormon haters that pop up on this site?
I’m so sick and tired of this….
…”if you are not for Mitt, you are a bigot”….
…….that is what this place as ended up being…
It is truly unbelievable….
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Anti-Catholic bigots are holding Santo down on this site. Pro-Mitt Cathos are bigoted against themselves. What a pity.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Firecracker,
Truth doesn’t hurt me Firecracker, because I spent a whole thread two days ago telling the Mormon Bigot “Jason” to take a hike at RACE42012.
As for a religous baiter like you it’s time for you to take a hike as well.
Now get.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:26 pm
What keeps Barack Obama up at night? Mitt Romney!!
http://youtu.be/Qs0eJtsZDpo
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Just look at the exit polling for Minnessota, Colorado, and Missouri. It was BLATANTLY obvious that the anti-Mormon vote was the only thing pushing Santorum to the finish line. He completely denies it though…since he would much rather assume his support came from “conservative values” voters. Poppycock.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Smack,
They live in this little cocoon where all people of good will just know that Mitt is the smartest, greatest, most virtuous, most transcendently awesome candidate there ever was, or ever will be.
All others are just demons who hate him because of his religion (and awesomeness).
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Wendi,
“Just look at the exit polling for Minnessota, Colorado, and Missouri. It was BLATANTLY obvious that the anti-Mormon vote was the only thing pushing Santorum to the finish line.”
Really? Could you point me to those polls?
I wonder how Mitt won MN and CO last time, with all those evil people prowling about….
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:35 pm
WendiM,
You can’t be real?
Now Minnesota, my state is the land of Bigots?
In 2008 when Mitt won Minnesota, by state wasn’t full of bigots?….but now it is?
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?
I have stated many times here that there is a growing number of Romeny supporters here at RACE42012 in which their statements center around “How dare people not support Mitt..they must be bigots”…..
…but you guys are making my job way too easy.
The chip on your shoulder WendiM is making me walk away from Mitt…not towards him…
Minnesota is a state of Bigots?
Maybe I won’t show up to vote in November after all…..I can’t believe I just said that..but everyday I have to defend my state from Romney zealots who trash my state.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Smacks,
“WendiM,
You can’t be real?
Now Minnesota, my state is the land of Bigots?”
Oh, just wait ’til you see that exit poll she’s going to show us any minute now…..
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Smacks,
“I have stated many times here that there is a growing number of Romeny supporters here at RACE42012 in which their statements center around “How dare people not support Mitt..they must be bigots”…..
Thankfully, most of those have been banned. More may soon follow.
Kavon isn’t a fan of religion baiting and flame wars.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:39 pm
70.
Matt – I do think that some take the anti-Mormon bigotry excuse too far but many of you try to pretend it doesn’t exist at all. Thats just dumb and totally unsupported by the facts.
There is a good deal of anti-Mormon bigotry, we saw it in bold bright lights in Iowa with the Vander der Plaats stuff, we saw it with the pastor who introduced Perry, we saw it with multiple preachers in FL that both Newt and Santorum courted. We even saw it today from a NYT reporter.
>>One of your columnists responds to a comment he does not like, from a Mormon presidential candidate, and responds, “Stick that in your magic underwear.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/291858/inew-york-timesi-columnist-mocks-romneys-magic-underwear
No way in hell could you get away with saying this kind of stuff about any other religious or ethnic group but too many people try to pretend this kind of stuff doesn’t happen every day.
I give Mormons a pass if they get a little exercised over this crap. I’m a bit surprised more people who call themselves Christians or just people of good faith don’t as well.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Matt “MWS”
I have always said that it is imperative that Obama loses…and I will walk through broken glass with bear feet to vote for Mitt…
…but…
this is getting out of hand real quick here at RACE42012.
If the Romney supporters feel this way about the rest of us….they we are all hateful people….why should I show up for Mitt in November?
It has gotten real bad…REAL BAD.
I’m a low-life because I don’t support Mitt?
When I supported Johnny Mac in 2008, GWB 2000, KEMP 1988..I never felt that way about others……that they were hatful bigots because they did not support my candidate. I thought they were wrong….but bigots?
If this is playing out in GOP land like it is here at RACE42012 we will lose the election.
In fact..I think we will lose now.
Chips are very heavy on some shoulders….it’s scary dude.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:47 pm
My new handle says all I need to say. I hope it will make some people think twice about ruining the dialogue here on this site.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Boomer,
Of course I agree…..the article is getting SMACKED around in Consrvatives circles…of course the Libs are letting it pass.
I will give everybody a pass..from time to time.
But I’m getting called a bigot once a day here because I have yet to get on the Mitt Train.
It never stops………..I’m just wondering if this is being played out all over GOP land?..if it is…. we are done.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Ah, this one is better.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Boomer,
I’ve discussed this issue, ad naseum for 4 1/2 years here now, and I’ve never said it doesn’t exist.
I’ve said there is no reason to think it’s decisive. If it is, the Rombots should just quit, because then by their own reasoning, they can’t win.
Around 6% of Republican voters “strongly dislike” Mitt, lowest among Republican candidates. Seems to me that if people hated Mitt’s religion, and were going to vote against him because they hate Mormons, they’d “strongly dislike” him, eh?
It’s fair to say that the LDS is not popular with a sizable minority of Republican (and Democrats and Independents), but they apparently aren’t taking it out on Mitt, judging by how they view him personally.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:50 pm
76
It’s not being played out in GOP land. There are a few folks who are relying on the bigotry card… these are the most ardent Romney posters online who are doing this. Not out in GOP land.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:51 pm
There is hate, but it’s not been decisive this cycle. Last cycle, it was part of it. This cycle, not so much.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:52 pm
“It does NOT contain any data effected by the debate last night.
[cough] affected! [cough]
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:56 pm
76.
Smack – I don’t think you’re a bigot. Horribly misguided, yes, a bigot, no.
Seriously, I do think some do take any slight of Romney as an evidence as bigotry and thats not right. But again, far too many turn a blind eye to the obvious bigotry that really does exist.
Nobody refers to Sanotrum as Rick the Catholic (although he talks about his religion far more than Romney does his) or jokes about Catholicism but somehow it seems perfectly acceptable to talk about Mitt the Mormon and joke about his “weird” religion. And there are way too many in the evangelical camp that talk openly about not supporting “the Mormon”. Look at the example of Charles Blow of the NYT. What other religion could be mocked like this? Islam? Yeah right. You would be sent to sensitivity training.
It’s a shame it keeps getting brought up but I suspect as long as people keep hammering on Romney’s religion you will see over the top push back from Mormons.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Matt, Where were you on the night of the Colorado/Minnessota/Missouri contests? I was glued to a tv watching the exit polling…Colorado Springs (the most Evangelical area in the state) is the precinct that pushed Santorum over the top. Exit polling revealed heavy support for Santorum there. Every single network reported the Evangelical vote was crucial in the other states as well. You can live in denial, but the elephant is definitely in the room. I’ll find you some links
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Michigan will go for Romney and then we’re on to Super Tuesday.
Santorum showed last night that he is not ready for the big leagues. Some of you guys’ continuous defense of him is pretty revealing.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:03 pm
I think it’s likely being Mormon has hurt Romney. The exit polls for SC suggest that it was the reason he lost that state. MWS gave some detailed explanation for why the exit poll might have been misleading, maybe he was right, but there’s certainly a strong case to be made that he lost the state due to his Mormonism. However, Rombots should avoid the generalizing statements about this being the only reason people don’t like Mitt. There’s plenty of others reasons to not like Romney, and just because it’s about Mormonism for some people it’s insulting when you suggest it is for everybody. Also consider that Romney did worse in some states he won last time; that doesn’t suggest Mormon bigotry because if I wasn’t dreaming Romney was a Mormon in ’08 too. What it reflects is people who will vote against the talk-radio scapegoat, and that has changed since ’08. Four years ago McCain was labeled the RINO to Rombot cheers; and Romney won those votes, now Rombots get to feel what it’s like to be on the other side of talk radio.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Sorry, but have you noticed how the Pope and Catholic church were recently portrayed at the big music industry award jamboree?
The fact is that ridiculing and insulting various religious groups is a part of our culture with a long history. The “bigotry” complaint won’t end it. In fact, only suicide bombs seem to work effectively.
No one is required to respect, like, or much less accept anyone else’s religious beliefs or disbeliefs. And that’s a good thing. But life in polite company would be much more, um, polite if folks would refrain from telling each other what they find silly or nefarious about others’ theological persuasions.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Wendi,
“Where were you on the night of the Colorado/Minnessota/Missouri contests?”
Here.
“Colorado Springs (the most Evangelical area in the state) is the precinct that pushed Santorum over the top.”
Soooo…… a religious group voting in large numbers for a particular candidate is prima facia evidence of bigotry…..
Is that your contention?
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Wendi,
Did you know that Mitt WON El Paso county (Colorado Springs) with a whopping 59% of the vote in ’08, besting his nearest rival (a certain Mike Huckabee) 3-1?
You owe the voters of Colorado Springs an apology.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:13 pm
>>Sorry, but have you noticed how the Pope and Catholic church were recently portrayed at the big music industry award jamboree?
What does that have to do with the Republican primary? Unless we going to start judging candidates by song and dance numbers than I suggest nothing. You’ll notice I didn’t mention the biggest hit playing on Broadway for the last year which happens to be a spoof of Mormonism because it doesn’t have anything to do with politics.
No one is required to do anything, thats very true. But if you follow that logic and excuse bigotry then don’t be offended when people start tossing around the term bigot.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Wendi,
Feast your eyes:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=CO
Now, where is that exit poll you were talking about?
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Boomer,
I think Marque’s point is that it’s inaccurate and unfair to portray Mormons as the only religious group that gets mocked.
Catholics get mocked, evangelicals get mocked, charismatics get mocked, etc… etc….
Ever hear the expression “Get your rosaries off my ovaries?”
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:19 pm
This discussion has taken a bad turn.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:23 pm
“Nobody refers to Sanotrum as Rick the Catholic (although he talks about his religion far more than Romney does his) or jokes about Catholicism but somehow it seems perfectly acceptable to talk about Mitt the Mormon and joke about his “weird” religion. And there are way too many in the evangelical camp that talk openly about not supporting “the Mormon”. Look at the example of Charles Blow of the NYT. What other religion could be mocked like this? Islam? Yeah right. You would be sent to sensitivity training.”
You really haven’t been paying attention have you? Evangelicals have become much more friendly to the Catholic church than they were fifty years ago, but Secularists aren’t exactly blowing kisses toward the Vatican. You say nobody would dare knock Islam…what, have right-wingers been insinuating that Obama is a Muslim as some secret compliment? Bashing Islam is called campaigning in some Republican primaries. Left wingers tread carefully on this, but some of the less post-modern more modernist ones hate Islam as much as they do Catholicism. And then Evangelicals constantly get roasted, just take note of Max Twain’s post if you want to see how pop-culture treats Evangelicals. I realize not all the other denominations have a history of being hunted down like dogs; but don’t pretend in the 21st cent. you’re the only one to be the butt of a joke or two.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:28 pm
93 There’s some truth to that. For example when Catholics and Mormons fought against gay marriage in California, they went after the Mormons in ads. Why, because it’s more socially acceptable to mock and deride them.
However, most people here are pretty fair minded, and issues orientated. It’s nothing we can change, and complaining about it doesn’t help anyone. It’s better to just move on. It won’t be a decisive factor in this race, and it will not be a factor at all in the general election.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:28 pm
WendiM Says:
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Just look at the exit polling for Minnessota, Colorado, and Missouri. It was BLATANTLY obvious that the anti-Mormon vote was the only thing pushing Santorum to the finish line. He completely denies it though…since he would much rather assume his support came from “conservative values” voters. Poppycock.
——————————————————————————-
What exit polls? I’m not aware of any for any of these states. Do you have links to back up your ridiculous assertions?
My MN precinct gave Mitt close to 50% of the vote in 2008. This time he got 17% Are you saying his religion is responsible for his loss of support in my precinct?
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Matt-
See, this is what I mean about ignoring the obvious. Nobody gives a crap about Newt’s or Santorum’s Catholicism. Not in the Republican primary. Hell, they have competing for the evangelical vote, a large part of which is off limits to a Mormon and you know it. You know it because the topic came up today when it was brought up that Rubio attended a Mormon church when he was a kid and the immediate reaction by just about everyone is would it be possible for two Mormons to run on a ticket.
Franklin Graham was on TV the other day and he was asked if he thought Romney was a Christian. It’s not the fact that he answered no thats the issue, its the fact that the question was even asked.
I don’t buy your number of only 6% saying they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, I’ve seen numbers a lot higher, well into the double digits. Its a problem and it really has no place in the Republican Party in 2012.
And if you don’t think its an issue just wait, if Romney is the nominee the left and the media, pretty much the same thing, will be writing all sorts of “interesting” articles about Mormons. We’ll see then if you think its not an issue.
Now, for the second half of Knicks – Heat. Later.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Well, if there is the anti-Mormon religious bigotry that you’re pointing out in the GOP primary, how much worse will that be in a general election when the overwhelming majority of militant secularists and proselytizing atheists get to go to the ballot box? If calling bigotry on your political allies won’t work, do you think it will convince your political adversaries and the folks they might influence?
In other words, by identifying bigotry as an obstacle to Mitt in the primary, that obstacle will be presumably larger in a general election. And that undermines the supposed electability your candidate is said to possess.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Also opposition to religious beliefs even extreme opposition should not be called bigotry; unless that opposition is rooted in lies (and I don’t mean Jax’s definition where anything you disagree with is a lie, I don’t think Sunday is the Lord’s day; but that doesn’t mean I say other churches are lying…), or infringes on the other groups religious freedom. Loosely throwing around the term bigotry for harsh religious disagreement is rooted in a liberal understanding of theology where theology is just a form of culture and no more important than one’s skin color. Those who throw around the term lightly should be aware that they are running the risk of being bigoted, by their own definition of bigotry, against anyone who doesn’t share such a liberal view on theological differences.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Boomer,
“I don’t buy your number of only 6% saying they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon”
That’s not what I said. I said 6% “strongly dislike” him. If people were voting against him because they hate Mormons, then they hate him, which ought to show up as “strongly dislike.”
As for a “large part” of the evangelical vote being “off limits to a Mormon”, how do you explain Mitt beating Huckabee 3-1 in Colorado Springs in ’08?
Evangelicals thought Huck was the Mormon?
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Marque,
“In other words, by identifying bigotry as an obstacle to Mitt in the primary, that obstacle will be presumably larger in a general election. And that undermines the supposed electability your candidate is said to possess.”
It will be larger. Liberals have a lower opinion of the LDS than conservatives. Democrats lower than Republicans. Blacks lower than whites.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Since the term gets bantied around so much here, and this thread has already been ruined, let me give you my take on what constitutes “religious bigotry.”
1. Saying religion X is not Christian is NOT bigotry.
2. Deciding that Candidate X does not share your values because of real religious differences is NOT bigotry.
3. Deciding that you cannot vote for Candidate X because of honest theological differences that matter to you for some reason, is NOT bigotry.
4. Deciding that you will not vote for Candidate X because you dislike the members of his religion, and consider them all alike, IS bigotry.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:45 pm
“Nobody gives a crap about Newt’s or Santorum’s Catholicism. Not in the Republican primary. Hell, they have competing for the evangelical vote, a large part of which is off limits to a Mormon and you know it.”
Yes, the gap between Evangelicals and Catholics seems to have narrowed more than the gap between evangelicals and Mormons. However, the liberals will definitely give a crap about Newt or Santorum’s Catholicism. Just the other week I had a FB debate with my retired Marxist history professor and one of his feminist friends about the contraception issue. He was absolutely outraged that the Catholic Church would lay a claim to religious liberty after all their transgressions since Constantine, and his Feminist friend complained that the RCC was for men, by men, and saw women as baby machines. Perhaps, that’s a rare sentiment among liberals but I kind of doubt it.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:45 pm
For the record, I do not consider LDS Christian, for strictly theological reasons, but I do not consider Mitt’s religion as an obsticle to shared values, as they relate to public office. So I would say that #1 applies to me in my examples in 101, but not #2 or #3, and certainly not #4. But I would not consider those in #2 or #3 to be bigots.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Yes. And beyond that, of what use is it to bandy about the term “bigotry” when you’re about to face Our Nation’s Very First Black President (TM)?
I think most folks think about bigotry in terms of simple outward signs like skin color or perhaps handicap. Trying to tell people they’re probably bigots if they won’t vote for a buttoned-down white dude over ONVFBP(TM) will not wash. Think about it.
I’d recommend banishing the term “bigotry” in favor of “anti-Mormon bias” or simply “narrow-mindedness.”
“You’re so narrow-minded to reject Mitt. Get hep, daddy-o!”
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:47 pm
John Mark,
“Perhaps, that’s a rare sentiment among liberals but I kind of doubt it.”
No, it’s not. I can assure you.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Marque,
LOL!
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Limbaugh said he cringed when Santorum said he was talking one for the team. He also said he will get killed after his debate preformance from both the left and the right. I just wating for a Romney ad with those comments and the reviews of his debate preformance.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:55 pm
james,
Not sure if Mitt wants to make Limbaugh an authority on the race.
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:03 pm
“For the record, I do not consider LDS Christian, for strictly theological reasons,…”
The problem I think that has made this debate extra-charged and off focus is that for too many “Christian” has become more of an adjective about a person’s kindness and ethics than a theological term; this should be offensives both to Christians who think their theology is important, and to other religions who also happen to be kind.
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
My point was only that even Limbaugh,not a Romney fan is panning Santorum’s debate preformance. I also read Mitt had a very large turnout at tea party meeting tonight in MI and got a couple of standing o’s. One for saying his team is the american people. He also has another tea party meeting later tonight.
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Matt, Sorry about making you wait so long…I needed to get dinner on the table. Google the words “GOP PRIMARY COLORADO EVANGELICAL 2012″ and you’ll get so many results it’ll make your head spin. The fact that you admit that you don’t believe LDS people are Christians because they don’t fit into your round peg hole of Trinity beliefs, I’m assuming, makes me believe you may have some inaccurate thought processes about LDS people as well. As recently as the end of last year, 26% of the American people polled would not vote for a Mormon. You can google that one too.
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:24 pm
One more note….The Republican Party has, in my humble view, been extremely damaged in the past 2 years. Why? Because rather than being accepting of many beliefs, religions, cultures and lifestyles (in other words, being extremely judgemental) in the name of conservatism, we have reduced the size of our tent to mainly welcome extremists. ie..”If you don’t sign my pro-life agenda, you’re a loser” mentality. I would bet 10,000 dollars tonight if I had it, that the GOP loses members in droves after this next cycle.
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:29 pm
My bad…It’s 22%, not 26%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/hesitant-support-mormon-2012.aspx
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Wendi,
LOL! Your answer is for me to Google, and find more unsubstantiated claims from people like you?
What do you think of the fact that Mitt beat Huck 3-1 in Colorado Springs last time?
And you didn’t answer my question from earlier, does a large block of voters from a religion voting for a particular candidate offer prima facia evidence of bigotry?
Finally, I don’t have to accept your definition of Christian any more than you have to accept mine. But yes, my definition excludes polytheism.
It’s poker night, so I probably won’t see your answer ’til morning. That should give you plenty of time to figure out where all those bigots in Colorado Springs hid in 2008.
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:33 pm
111,
As recently as the end of last year, 26% of the American people polled would not vote for a Mormon. You can google that one too. – WendiM
If that’s the case, we’re screwed. Mitt can’t win.
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:42 pm
101. and 114….You are a perfect example of why Republicans will leave the party in droves. Btw, it’s not hard to type in a few words to get lots of legitimate results. I’ve got a family to take care of, so I thought you might be willing to take the cut and paste party off my hands, but maybe not
By the way, last election when Mitt won Colorado….Mitt was considered the conservative option to John McCain. Not sure why people don’t think he’s conservative anymore.
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:42 pm
“… we have reduced the size of our tent to mainly welcome extremists. ie..”If you don’t sign my pro-life agenda, you’re a loser” mentality…”
I know I’m becoming a broken record on this, but why is it that pro-life pledges are being intolerant, but the Grover Norquist pledge signed that 99% of the party has signed is not a problem? Did we have another Sinai event where the sixth commandment suddenly get replaced with a commandment about tax policy, while I wasn’t paying attention?
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Uh oh…Santorum stepped in it again….I see a great Ron Paul ad coming up….
Arlen Specter: “I made no deals about judges with Santorum. We had no such conversaion…”
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/02/arlen-specter-challenges-rick-santorum-account-conversation-about-endorsement/Vy16TvOosN7TyWTyyiTUUN/index.html?comments=all
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:47 pm
I’d vote for a Muslim if he were convincingly running on a platform I supported.
So it doesn’t matter to me at all that Romney is a different religion than me. If I thought Romney would act appropriately as President I’d vote for him. His religion doesn’t enter into it. He could be a member of my religion and I’d still not vote for him.
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:49 pm
“Mitt was considered the conservative option to John McCain. Not sure why people don’t think he’s conservative anymore.”
Yes, that’s clear evidence that they’re bigots. They just couldn’t handle the Romney’s conversion to Mormonism after ’08…
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Started reading the posts…..then stopped.
Folks, can we please stop this religious infighting and get back to turning around the country?
And for the new LDS posters on here: Matt (MWS) is a good guy and not a Mormon basher. I’ll vouch for him
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Certainly. And as I recall, we’ve got at least MPC, perhaps even others (Nowandlater?), who are Mormon and supporting other candidates because they agree with those other folks. I doubt the Mormon RomneyBots would want to claim that their coreligionists are “anti-Mormon bigots.”
February 23rd, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Sorry Everyone! I have read so many anti-LDS blogs in the past year that it’s just finally getting to me. Everything from ‘magic underwear’ to ‘how many wives does your grandfather have?’ to ‘you force your sons to serve missions’. Wow, does that get old. I have 6 children. 2 Marines, 2 beautiful, educated daughters, and 2 more sons who are learning Chinese and Farsi so they can one day serve their country as interpreters (international relations majors). I’ll get off my soapbox, but I really am worried about our party, and many in our country who vote based on religious preference. LDS.org is the only website to get the truth about Mormons. It might be a good idea to check facts before drawing conclusions…just a thought.
February 23rd, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Please delete this entire thread! So depressing! May the best guy win. That’s all I care about.
February 23rd, 2012 at 11:42 pm
New Michigan Rosetta Stone poll after debate has Romney at 36 and Santorum at 33.
Among registered Republicans in Michigan:
Romney 42
Santorum 33
Paul 8
Gingrich 8
Santorum is only still close to Romney because Democrats in Michigan are going for Santorum 36 versus Romney 3 (three percent).
http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/Michigan%20Mitchell_Rosetta%20Stone%20Feb%2023.pdf
February 24th, 2012 at 8:01 am
Boomer is right. I think one would need to be blind not to see that religious bigotry against Romney has played a part in this primary. How much, I don’t know, but I think it is also a fairly significant part of the ABR movement. You have pastors all over the place who introduced Perry, Newt,and Santorum saying Mormons are a cult, once had death squads, etc. You have pastors laying hands on Rick as a last ditch effort to stop the Mormon. It’s there, and there’s plenty of evidence for it.
Sometimes, I think the race community gets their shorts in a bunch anytime this is mentioned, and a lot of people assume they are being called bigots. But I don’t think any of the posters here are bigots. When one does come around, he gets slapped down pretty darn fast. As a Mormon, I appreciate that. So, I guess my point, made too late to matter, is that you shouldn’t all assume you are being accused of it, simply because it’s mentioned as a factor. Smack, I’m talking to you. You are not seen as a bigot. Only bigots are seen as bigots. And I really don’t think we have any around here that stick around long.
February 29th, 2012 at 10:43 am
[...] began confidently predicting a Michigan loss for Romney. “He’s done. Stick a fork in him”, were some of the comments seen around the web. [...]