PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey
- Barack Obama 47% {48%} [47%] (48%)
- Mike Huckabee 43% {41%} [44%] (42%)
- Barack Obama 48% {48%} [47%] (49%)
- Mitt Romney 40% {39%} [40%] (40%)
- Barack Obama 52% {53%} [52%] (51%)
- Sarah Palin 40% {38%} [38%] (43%)
- Barack Obama 50%
- Tim Pawlenty 30%
Among Independents
- Barack Obama 41% {46%} [41%] (42%)
- Mitt Romney 40% {35%} [41%] (43%)
- Barack Obama 43% {46%} [42%] (44%)
- Mike Huckabee 40% {33%} [41%] (43%)
- Barack Obama 47% {52%} [50%] (47%)
- Sarah Palin 35% {35%} [34%] (41%)
- Barack Obama 46%
- Tim Pawlenty 29%
Note: In 2008, John McCain received 44% of the Independent vote (29% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 48% of the Independent vote.
Among Republicans
- Mike Huckabee 79% {77%} [80%] (76%)
- Barack Obama 10% {13%} [11%] (12%)
- Mitt Romney 77% {72%} [74%] (71%)
- Barack Obama 10% {14%} [11%] (18%)
- Tim Pawlenty 59%
- Barack Obama 11%
- Sarah Palin 77% {70%} [74%] (79%)
- Barack Obama 15% {18%} [15%] (14%)
Note: In 2008, John McCain received 90% of the Republican vote (32% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 93% of the Republican vote.
Among Moderates
- Barack Obama 61% {58%} [56%] (58%)
- Mike Huckabee 29% {31%} [32%] (32%)
- Barack Obama 60% {57%} [57%] (56%)
- Mitt Romney 28% {30%} [30%] (32%)
- Barack Obama 60%
- Tim Pawlenty 20%
- Barack Obama 66% {68%} [63%] (62%)
- Sarah Palin 25% {23%} [25%] (31%)
Note: In 2008, John McCain received 39% of the Moderate vote (44% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 45% of the Moderate vote.
Among Men
- Mike Huckabee 47% {47%} [49%] (49%)
- Barack Obama 43% {44%} [43%] (43%)
- Mitt Romney 46% {46%} [44%] (46%)
- Barack Obama 46% {44%} [44%] (46%)
- Barack Obama 47%
- Tim Pawlenty 34%
- Barack Obama 50% {50%} [48%] (47%)
- Sarah Palin 42% {41%} [41%] (47%)
Note: In 2008, John McCain received 48% of the Male vote (47% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 55% of the Male vote.
Among Women
- Barack Obama 51% {50%} [50%] (53%)
- Mike Huckabee 39% {36%} [39%] (36%)
- Barack Obama 50% {52%} [50%] (51%)
- Mitt Romney 36% {34%} [36%] (35%)
- Barack Obama 54% {55%} [56%] (54%)
- Sarah Palin 37% {36%} [35%] (40%)
- Barack Obama 52%
- Tim Pawlenty 28%
Note: In 2008, John McCain received 43% of the Female vote (53% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 48% of the Female vote.
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Mike Huckabee 33% {38%} [45%] (42%) / 29% {36%} [28%] (33%) {+4%}
- Mitt Romney 34% {33%} [37%] (37%) / 34% {38%} [34%] (37%) {0%}
- Tim Pawlenty 11% / 16% {-5%}
- Sarah Palin 36% {37%} [40%] (47%) / 51% {55%} [49%] (45%) {-15%}
Among Independents
- Mitt Romney 38% {38%} [40%] (45%) / 28% {33%} [31%] (28%) {+10%}
- Mike Huckabee 34% {32%} [48%] (44%) / 27% {38%} [24%] (30%) {+7%}
- Tim Pawlenty 13% / 17% {-4%}
- Sarah Palin 34% {33%} [37%] (45%) / 48% {59%} [49%] (43%) {-14%}
Among Republicans
- Sarah Palin 72% {69%} [72%] (76%) / 18% {22%} [16%] (19%) {+54%}
- Mike Huckabee 56% {70%} [66%] (66%) / 13% {12%} [13%] (19%) {+43%}
- Mitt Romney 54% {50%} [52%] (54%) / 20% {21%} [18%] (25%) {+34%}
- Tim Pawlenty 15% / 9% {+6%}
Among Conservatives
- Sarah Palin 65% {69%} [68%] (73%) / 19% {22%} [20%] (18%) {+46%}
- Mike Huckabee 53% {59%} [61%] (65%) / 12% {15%} [13%] (16%) {+41%}
- Mitt Romney 49% {46%} [49%] (53%) / 16% {20%} [22%] (20%) {+33%}
- Tim Pawlenty 17% / 9% {+8%}
Among Moderates
- Mitt Romney 29% {32%} [34%] (33%) / 37% {41%} [36%] (39%) {-8%}
- Mike Huckabee 24% {29%} [40%] (34%) / 34% {43%} [30%] (36%) {-10%}
- Tim Pawlenty 8% / 19% {-11%}
- Sarah Palin 22% {20%} [29%] (33%) / 66% {71%} [58%] (58%) {-44%}
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Mormon Religion?
- Favorable 21%
- Unfavorable 34%
Among Liberals
- Favorable 18%
- Unfavorable 45%
Among Moderates
- Favorable 19%
- Unfavorable 29%
Among Conservatives
- Favorable 25%
- Unfavorable 35%
Among Republicans
- Favorable 26%
- Unfavorable 38%
Among Voters Age 18-29
- Favorable 21%
- Unfavorable 43%
Survey of 766 registered voters was conducted October 16-19. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 41% {40%} [41%] Democrat; 33% {35%} [35%] Republican; 26% {25%} [24%] Independent. Results from the poll conducted September 18-21 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-16 are in parentheses.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Mike Huckabee leads again in yet another poll, interesting how Romney is still “the front runner”.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
Take out the religion factor, and Romney is the frontrunner.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Is it me or is it just not that surprising that almost half of liberals have a more unfavorable opinion of the Mormon faith as opposed to just a third of conservatives?
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 am
Give huckabee the “front runner” status, it really seemed to be a curse in 08.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
#3 Prop 8 etc.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Steven,
“Take out the religion factor, and Romney is the frontrunner.”
Having an “unfavorable” opinion of Mormonism does not equal, “won’t vote for a Mormon.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 am
#2 “Take out the religion factor, and Romney is the frontrunner.”
If, by the religion factor, you mean that Gov Romney is Mormon, and we all just KNOW the GOP is bigoted towards Mormons, I suggest you keep looking for a REAL reason that Gov Romney trails. If, on the other hand, you mean that Gov Romney just has a hard time winning religious voters, then he just needs to find a better way to connect to them, because they are the reality of the electorate.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 am
To me the upshot of this poll is:
1. Huck is consistently shown as Obama’s strongest opponent this year.
2. Palin is still the darling of conservatives.
3. Romney does relatively well with moderates, not as well with conservatives.
4. 3/4 of voters, including Republicans, don’t know who the hell Pawlenty is.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
#5:
But, but, liberals can’t view different people unfavorably. They are so tolerant. Just ask them, they’ll tell you.
As for the whole question about who is the “frontrunner”, it seems clear to me that we have at least 2, maybe 3. There is no one frontrunner, nor should there be this far out. Each of the candidates needs to prove that they belong in the race and they can stand toe-to-toe with Obama.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Huckabee won’t make a dent outside the south in the National Election. The south is already Republican.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Huckabee 4 Pres!! There isn’t a better speaker for our conservative beliefs.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
The key to winning will be the Independents, not the Republicans. Once again, Romney clearly does better with the Independents. Advantage: Mitt.
At this point before the last election my mindset was to vote Republican unless the Party nominated McCain. Guess what? I voted for McCain. I didn’t like it, but the alternative was Obama.
The Republicans will come home during the stretch drive of the campaign regardless of which of these four get the nomination. What’s in doubt will be how well we do among Independents.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
The media say it’s a Palin-Romney battle; however, the people seem to think it is a Huckabee-Romney battle.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:09 am
If I were a Huckabee fan, I’d get real excited about this (and other recent polls with similar results). But the difference between Huck and Romney is MoE stuff — meaningless. Even Palin and Pawlenty are doing OK for two years before the race gets hot.
The more important story, I think, is Obama’s weakness, in a PPP poll.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
I like how Dave and other people spin this poll saying that Romney is the front-runner. For goodness sakes, Huck leads across the boards vs. any Republicans except for a few spots. Just because Republican insiders hate Huck doesn’t mean the average voter does.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 am
#13:
It’s a Huckabee-Romney-Palin-Pawlenty fight, along with whatever dark horse might emerge. We are a long way off from the primaries, and especially the general election. Anything, absolutely anything could happen between now and November 2012.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Steven,
“Huckabee won’t make a dent outside the south in the National Election.”
According to this (and every other) head to head poll this year, he makes a bigger “dent” than Romney.
That’s twice now in two posts on this thread you’ve just made stuff up without any supporting evidence. You’ll fit in well with some of the other Rombots here. Like you, they view political analysis as wish fulfillment, and project their own opinions on the rest of the electorate.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 am
BTW,
I’m thrilled, as a Mormon, to see that our unfavorables are down to 34%. They used to burn down our farms and houses, tar and feather our prophets, and hang our missionaries. As recently as 20 or 30 years ago, that 34% number would have been well over 50%. Of course, 20 or 30 years ago, there were only about half as many of us. Kudos to all of you who have developed open minds!
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Who does Huckabee unite other than Evangelicals? Is he going to unite Mormons, Catholics, and other Protestants?
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Who does Huckabee unite other than Evangelicals? Is he going to unite Mormons, Catholics, and other Protestants?
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
Check out last week’s Rasmussen Report too. They give some good insight.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Never knew MWS was the standard of substance around here. I have noticed he is a great generalizer though.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
MWS,
My guess is that Palin is struggling with conservative indies/democrats (though she does win 12% of Democrats, the same percentage that disapprove of Obama).
She seems to be doing pretty well with moderate Republicans though. I’d guess her favorabes with this group are around 60%, which would be higher than those held by Romney and Huckabee.
Our candidate will need to win at least 80% of moderate Republicans, though they shouldn’t be that hard to win over in a general election.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 am
Steven,
“Who does Huckabee unite other than Evangelicals?”
Apparently more people than Romney. Did you even read through this poll?
Once again, you are simply projecting your own opinions on the rest of the electorate.
BTW, evangelicals are not 43% of the electorate.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
#19:
Stop thinking in terms of religion. Few voters actually vote on the basis of religion. I sure as heck wouldn’t vote for Joe Biden for any office just because he also happens to be Catholic, and I don’t know of many other Catholics who would.
No matter who we nominate, conservatives and Republicans are going to rally to them in order to beat Obama. The swing votes are in the middle with independents and moderates. At this point, Romney has a slight favorability lead over both Huckabee and Palin among independents, but that could change. It’s just too early to tell.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:28 am
Tommy,
What I find interesting with Palin is that she actually runs 1 point better among Indies than Huck in the head to head, despite running 8 points worse overall. Although she has consistently run the worst of the three in head-to-heads this year, this poll indicates she may not have it as bad with Indies as CW has held.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
We are in October 2009. Who knows what controversies or scandals come out on the Republican side or Obama’s White House.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:33 am
Rasmussen shows that Huckabee leads Evangelicals by a wide margin while Romney leads Catholics. Both are even with Other Protestants.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
MWS,
She’s allegedly going to endorse Hoffman soon according to NRO.
I think someone needs to ask why the GOP favorables for Huckabee and Romney are 22 and 24 points lower, respectively, than their GOP favorables for Rasmussen.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:42 am
The truth about this is, THERE IS NO FRONTRUNNER…YET. Huckabee is a more favorable and likeable choice to THE ENTIRE ELECTORATE AS A WHOLE…right now. He is gaining ground overall, but in this poll it seems everything pretty much stayed the same as last time. Huckabee is good with conservatives, romney is good with independants….WE NEED BOTH TO WIN. You cannot give me the garbage about everyone “coming home” to Mitt if he is the nominee. Same goes with any candidate. There will always be those that despise someone for their “lack” of something. I DID NOT VOTE IN THE LAST ELECTION. I just couldn’t…even though i donated to mccain early on after he got the nomination. He was just pushing all the “wrong” buttons. Man, get out the base idiot. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why palin was on the ticket, and yet she didn’t get to pump up the base and drive results.
If you think the nomination is going to be easy to get, you’d be wrong. I’m very much on the fence right now between huck and pawlenty…but if it looks like huck is in a better position for both the primary and the general, it’s that much easier to vote for huck. Romney….i just want him to have a voice…to be the guy. Make Him VP, Make him Secretary of State…but i don’t want him to get the nod. Romney is a good man, but he needs a better campaign staff…he needs to be coached better on interaction and substance. He needs to prepare for those moments in the debates where everyone attacks his record on abortion, guns etc.
WHAT WILL BE THE DEFINING ISSUE OF THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY? Other than the economy. I think it will be GUNS. I think a lot of people are scared about losing their guns, i think a lot of the base believes in the second amendment and the only person with a solid record as of right now on that issue is MIKE HUCKABEE. Who is a hunter, but says the second amendment isn’t about hunting. That’s how a lot of us gun supporters feel. Romney is not a gun guy. He doesn’t get it. To him there should be a middle ground. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND on guns. After our healthcare, guns will be the next thing to go. Like leading the lambs to the slaughter.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:50 am
#28 – Steven, on the Rasmussen crosstabs, Huckabee leads with Evangelicals by a far greater percentage than ROmney does with Catholics. I am not sure what your point is, but your underlying premise is misleading.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:55 am
In the end, it won’t matter whether we carry Alabama by 15 points or 30 points, but it will matter a great deal whether we carry Nevada or Michigan or New Hampshire by any margin at all. Mitt will be the better nominee in the general for several, oft-stated reasons.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Tommy,
“She’s allegedly going to endorse Hoffman soon according to NRO.”
That would make perfect sense, and give action to her promise to support conservatives of any (or no) party. When the GOP screws it up that bad, someone has to try to fix the mess. I think Levin had Hoffman on last night. So with the publicity he’s getting, and the star power he is drawing, I’m guessing he’ll finish ahead of the Republican at least, who will probably be abandoned by most Republican voters.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“Give huckabee the “front runner” status, it really seemed to be a curse in 08.”
Not really. At least not on the Republican side. McCain WAS the early leader.
—
I don’t know these number don’t really seem to add up for some reason – can’t put my finger on it.
Anyway, Huckabee is liked right now because he has a television show where he can do/say/talk about that and only that which he wants to. He doesn’t have to address issues of tax-and-spend, of letting killers run free, of populism, or of anything else which makes him less appealing to the general population.
See what happens IF he runs, and if he does, then WHEN he doesn’t have an open mic to go unchallenged.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Dave,
I think Pawlenty could move MN, WI, and IA, which would be an even richer pickup than NV, MI, and NH.
But really, with Michigan in ruins, I think any Republican will win it if the overall race is close. I look for MI to turn a little redder than the national average.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Dave,
“In the end, it won’t matter whether we carry Alabama by 15 points or 30 points”
Likewise, it won’t matter if we carry Utah by 60 points or 280 points.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“In the end, it won’t matter whether we carry Alabama by 15 points or 30 points, but it will matter a great deal whether we carry Nevada or Michigan or New Hampshire by any margin at all.” True, but if we can win Michigan, it does not matter who the nominee is. With 43%, Mr. Huckabee must be doing well in at least some states apart from the South. Then again,with 40%, both Mr. Romney and Mrs. Palin must be doing OK in a variety of states as well.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I blame Fox News for this, how could people believe Huckabee is conservative?
HUCKABE MUST…
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
MWS,
I suspect that the reason Huckabee is doing slightly better than Mitt right now in a General match-up is because he’s actually a little better known, due to the tv show. Similarly, the reason why Pawlenty is losing by 20 points is probably ignorance about who he is.
There’s a case to be made for Tim, who I would strongly prefer to Huck in the Primary, but having read literally thousands of Anti-Mitt posts and articles, I don’t think there’s a viable case to be made against Mitt.
This poll doesn’t give us a state-by-state breakout, but if it did, I believe that Mitt would win more electoral votes than Huck. One can clearly discern that from the limited information given in the poll.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“This poll doesn’t give us a state-by-state breakout, but if it did, I believe that Mitt would win more electoral votes than Huck.” I am not so sure, Mr. Romney only does 2 point better than Mr. Romney in the West, but Mr. Huckabee does 8 points better than Mr. Romney in the MidWest.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Dave,
“This poll doesn’t give us a state-by-state breakout, but if it did, I believe that Mitt would win more electoral votes than Huck. One can clearly discern that from the limited information given in the poll.”
Did you mean “clearly CAN NOT discern that from the limited info in this poll”? Because I don’t see how you could draw a state by state conclusion.
Anyway, you’re right about Pawlenty. The poll shows only about 25% of the electorate has an opinion of him. But your name ID assertion of Romney vs. Huck is contradicted by this poll, as 62% have an opinion of Huck and 68% have an opinion of Romney. It could just be that Romney is more divisive, so more people have an opinion of him. But I think if anything, this poll shows that Romney has HIGHER name ID than Huck.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
#35: As a (qualified) Pawlenty supporter and a MN native, I don’t have any confidence he can carry MN.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
BTW, the reason I’m a Pawlenty supporter is that he’s the guy who can both get out the conservative vote and woo independents — and is otherwise a likable general election candidate with nothing resembling a skeleton.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I don’t know what can be worse, 8 years of Obama or 8 hours of Huckabee.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Does anyone want another Romney vs Huckabee battle for the nomination?
I am not looking forward to that, expecially the compaigns going back and forth like they did in 2008. And then the Huck vs Romney supporters…
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Metro,
Well, MN has only shaded a few points bluer than the national average the last 3 elections. If TPaw get a 5 point favorite son boost in a close race, I think he wins it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Giulliani proved poll leads minus organization are meaningless. Until huck matches romneys org he will not be the frontrunner.
Although Romney/huckabee is starting to look good.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Metro,
Come back to the party, and then we’ll talk. BTW, hope you’re doing well.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
OJ,
Where did you see the regional break-outs of the poll? They’re not in the post.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Dave,
If you click the link to the poll, it has more cross tabs than listed in this FPP.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
#29:
I have already asked that question. This is a huge discrepancy and has the ability to change the perceptions of the entire primary race depending which poll is closer to the truth regarding Huck and Mitt’s favorables with Republicans.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
#10-”Huckabee won’t make a dent outside the south in the National Election. The south is already Republican.”
Huckabee Favorables by region:
Huckabee’s positive in the Midwest and South-and the midwest would be those crucial swingstates of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana-which went blue for Obama, Iowa. The south would include the crucial swingstate of Florida and then there is Texas-which Obama will be making a play for in 2012.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Click the link Dave. Mr. Romney is one point better than Mr. Huckabee in the Northeast and 2 points better in the West. Meanwhile, Mr. Huckabee does 5 point better in the South and 8 points better in the MidWest.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I’ll run the numbers over the weekend, but it looks like Mr. Huckabee would have a much better chance of winning Ohio, , VA, FL, NC, IN, MO and maybe even Iowa. The only state that Mr. Romney wins that Mr. Huckabee does not could be NV and even that is pushing it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Ohio,
“Meanwhile, Mr. Huckabee does 5 point better in the South”
And that could be crucial. It’s not about winning Alabama by 30, as Dave jests, it’s about winning NC, VA, and FL, all of which went to Obama by narrow margins.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
True, MWS, if we have trouble with NC again, we will lose anyway, but VA and even FL might be a little more important.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
#30
“RIGHT NOW HE (HUCKABEE) IS GAINING GROUND OVERALL:
It may appear that way on the surface but it simply NOT true.
1)Huck has dropped 12 points in his overall favorables in the last 2 months and 5 points in the last 30 days. In addition there are an additional 12% of respondents who voted “not sure” as opposed to last month
2)Huck has dropped 8 points among conservative favorables in 1 month (61 to 53)
3)Huck lost 7 points in F among men and 3 points in F among women over the last month
4)Among Republicans Huck lost 14 points in F in one month (70 to 56)
5)Huck has lost 12 points in F among white voters over the last 60 days
Yes this is counterintuitive but actually Huck’s support appears to be softening as I predicted a few days ago.
Sorry to burst your balloon!
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
MWS,
PPP has already said that Obama is “unlikely” to win North Carolina if the election were held today as his approval has slipped from the low 50s to 45%. Obama’s floor in North Carolina is likely 46% given the black population in the state. The state has changed to such an extent that we can probably no longer bank on 8-10 point wins.
I think our candidate would need a 52-47 in NC to win nationally.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
It is certainly true that Mr. Huckabee’s favorabilities are going down, but we will have wait to see if this is real and what the effects will be.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I think a candidate with particular strength in the South and Miwest is more valuable than one with particular strength in the West and Northeast, all else being equal. Think about it, which states in each region could conceivably be picked up in a close race?
South:
Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina. 55 Electoral votes (probably more after the Census).
Midwest:
Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. 48 electoral votes (if you toss in WI, MN, and IA which were all close in ‘00 and ‘04, you get 75 electoral votes)
Northeast:
Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. 25 electoral votes.
West:
Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico. 19 electoral votes.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Tommy,
On the flip side of that coin, it’s amazing to think a Republican could win nationally when he’s only getting 52% in NC.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Very interesting stuff.
Mitt and Mike, Romney and Huck. Either way, it’s a horse race, and they are running on two different courses to the same end point. Huck is using the show to gain retail exposure (which is what this poll measures) and Mitt is working the establishment and party regulars to gain their support (financial and endorsements) come primary season. Only time will tell which strategy delivers the win. (Not saying either is right or wrong. Each candidate seems to be playing the cards they were dealt.)
Sarah and Tim will have to find a way to elbow their way into this mix, which both have every ability to do. I haven’t heard any compelling argument for how they will impact the current numbers for either of the first two, especially since they will only matter when we lay that on top of the primary schedule. I think there is more and more evidence that Romney will go focus in NH/MI/NV/WY, go lite in IA, and let the caucuses do damage to at least one of the other three. But if all of the other three show up in IA, that will be a dirty fight, with each of them claiming a natural constituency. I think Sarah and Huck are an equally unnatural fit in NH as Mitt is in IA, which probably means Pawlenty could score a second.Sarah would need to have at least a second in IA to stay in.
However, I think if we can all keep a check on our partisan opinions, which are as valid and useful as who you think will win the WS, it will definitely create buzz and energy for the movement and the party. Let’s not encourage behavior that dissipates the resources and unity we will need to depose the current regime.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
further, I am thinking the unthinkable. A Mitt/Mike or Mitt/Tim ticket.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
After spending a half-hour going through the cross-tabs, my one firm conclusion is that whoever put the cross-tabs together should be shot.
BTW, it appears that the West is extremely under-sampled and the Mid-West over-sampled. I also wonder how these results would look if filtered for Likely Voters. Finally, I suspect that all of the Mormon questions in it dragged Romney’s numbers down somewhat. Also, some of the numbers do, indeed, look suspicious. They don’t add up.
An objective observer would have to say that it appears to be a two-man race. My subjective opinion is that Mitt will win it on the basis of organization, resources, and perceived electability as 2012 draws near. Right now, both Romney and Huckabee hold an incumbent president to less than 50%, and more than two years out from the election, that HAS to be good news for all Republicans.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Well, Intrade is etiher responding to Palin’s GOP favorables compared to the others or to the rumor that she’ll endorse Hoffman:
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/index.jsp?query=2012
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I am curious why this poll samples only 26 % independents. The last I read, the independent bloc was 40 %. Are they just sampling ID’s from a year ago ???
I was also surprised in the Tabs to see Romney doing so well in the 18-29 bracket, running +11 to + 3 ( Favorable / Unfavorable ) over Huckabee, since Huck’s show is aimed partly at that ” hip ” generation
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Dave,
“BTW, it appears that the West is extremely under-sampled and the Mid-West over-sampled. I also wonder how these results would look if filtered for Likely Voters. Finally, I suspect that all of the Mormon questions in it dragged Romney’s numbers down somewhat. ”
There was only one Mormon question, and since the results here were pretty much in line with what Mitt has been getting all summer in this poll, I don’t think it made much difference. Secondly, since Mitt only did 2 points better than Huck out West, giving the west more weight wouldn’t budge the Mitt/Mike relative strength very much, but would show Obama with a wider lead against both.
Finally, as others have noted, these polls are fun and give us junkies a fix, but they really don’t mean much this far out. There are no above water campaigns, no announced candidates, no speeches, ads, etc…. This gives us a picture of where the candidates are starting, and suffice to say that it is a wide open race.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Tommy,
I’m shocked that Pawlenty is trading that high!
If you want to make some easy money, start writing contracts on Powell and Lieberman(!) to win the nomination!!! I can’t believe they are actually trading those two!
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
MWS,
The betting people really have no respect for Huckabee. They see it as a Pawlenty/Palin/Romney race.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Intrade is of course totally worthless as a predictor, but I clicked on the link as well — which says something about me (and probably something not very positive).
I saw two things of interest — one being Pawlenty’s standing (especially relative to Huckabee), as MWS pointed out.
The other is the volumes. Of course, they’re tiny (which is part of why it’s worthless as a predictor), but a quick mental count of the volumes indicates that Palin’s volume is about three times everybody else combined!
What’s up with that? The only guess I can make is that Palin’s support/chances are more volatile and therefore create more trading interest and opportunities.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Bob,
I completely agree about Intrade. I WISH Pawlenty was sitting on about a 22% chance right now…..
Anyway, it’s pretty good about 3 hours before results of a particular race start coming in. Before that, worthless.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“The betting people really have no respect for Huckabee. They see it as a Pawlenty/Palin/Romney race.”
I wonder if the betting people are the same people who are big time party donors and are part of the Washington in-crowd?
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
The pollster should have also asked about other religions at the same time. Favorable/unfavorable.. Evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims etc.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Texas,
One thing’s for sure. The betting people are NOT Mormons. We’re not allowed.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
#65 Palin can’t win the general. Her unfavorables with Indies are through the roof—-and they decide the election!
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Hovic,
I know. It’s still funny though. Twain is a real smart guy and he’s not completely off when he says that “when all else fails, look at intrade.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Dave,
“One thing’s for sure. The betting people are NOT Mormons. We’re not allowed.”
LOL! Our parish still had BINGO every Friday night until about a year ago to help support the school.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Way too early for these polls.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
MWS,
My personal bias is that you traded up when you converted to Catholicism from Protestantism, gambling or no gambling. Catholics understand the importance of works in Soteriology, as well as the critical need for divine authority. It’s absurd to base ALL authority on the Bible.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Haha MWS, we do not have Bingo at our parish anymore. Shhhhhh, my wife was not happy with me for spending money at the raffle table during the local GOP fund-raiser.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
MWS, I did not realize that you are a convert.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Ohio,
Yeah, I grew up evangelical. My wife grew up Assemblies of God. We are both Catholic now.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Dave,
“My personal bias is that you traded up when you converted to Catholicism from Protestantism, gambling or no gambling.”
Yeah, and I get to smoke and drink now too (in moderation).
But in all seriousnes, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, along with Protestant ecclesiology were major problems for me.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I’ve never seen any particular moral/ethical/religious problem with gambling, perhaps because I was raised Catholic, where we not only had bingo on Friday nights in the parish hall, but we schoolkids had to sell raffle tickets (can you imagine sending 10-year-olds out to sell tickets door-to-door these days?), and the parish festival had several booths with games of chance.
The only objection I have to gambling is that I lose.
However, I don’t do anything much beyond $5 sports pools. I would look on it as I do alcohol: no problem — in moderation.
I’m surprised Catholic parishes are discontinuing bingo. There goes another great tradition!
(I still see Bingo advertised on parish signboards around here).
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Bob,
For our parish, BINGO just wasn’t pulling in enough money to make it worth all the volunteer hourse spent on it.
But I do host poker night once a month for a bunch of guys in the parish. $5 to play, last man standing gets the pot (and buys beer next time). In fact, poker night is tonight!!!
I’ve won more than my share, but I’m on a bit of a bad run…….
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
One’s favorable opinion of a religion is NOT necessarily reflective of their opinions of individual members of that religion. I have a favorable opinion of Mormons but unfavorable of Harry Reid. I have favorable opinion of evangelicals but unfavorable of Mike Huckabee. What one thinks about a specific religion has nothing to do with, or SHOULD have nothing to do with political support for candidates in America. This survey was commissioned to specifically disqualify Romney and put a religious test to his candidacy. PPP should be completely ashamed for playing the faith card in a push poll like this.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I think Catholic cultures in general have a pretty good tradition of being able to moderate things like alcohol.
If America had been founded by Italians and Spaniards, there probably would have been far less a need at the foundation of Mormonism for a prohibition of alcohol. Alas, the nation was settled by my ancestors, who were Scots-Irish and probably didn’t know what “moderation” meant in that regard
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I’m really suprised at the unfavorable numbers of the Mormon Church. What’s so unfavorable?
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Lori,
“This survey was commissioned to specifically disqualify Romney and put a religious test to his candidacy. PPP should be completely ashamed for playing the faith card in a push poll like this.”
PPP doesn’t do push polls. Push polls are done close to election time, typically by a campaign, and they spray out tons of calls to get out a message, not gather opinion. Push polls call tons of people because there purpose is to influence the election. They don’t just call 766 people, like this poll. They are more like solicitation calls. PPP is a legit organization, and I imagine they were testing to see if Romney’s religion might be a liability in ‘12, and among whom and where it would be a liability.
I GUARANTEE you Romney was testing the Mormon issue in his internal polling in ‘08.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
MWS, While technically you are correct that push polls are commissioned by campaigns and this one probably wasn’t, it is still a push poll in my view if it asks about the religion of only one of the candidates. It asks only about Mormonism. It may not be designed to push voters but it pushes the idea that a certain potential candidate’s Mormonism matters nonetheless.
To put the religion of one candidate up to scrutiny that no others’ religions are does put it into the mind of the participant that Mormonism matters. It doesn’t and shouldn’t. Why even ask the question in this poll? Its totally out-of-place unless its purpose was to negatively influence prospective voters.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I don’t think Mormons should take this as if they are the victims somehow. I’d say it makes all the more apparent the need to be good neighbors
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Aaron W.,
As I posted earlier, it used to be a lot worse. The residual unfavorables derive from Mormons having scriptures in addition to the Bible, and believing that revelation hasn’t ceased. This, of course, has been interpreted by members of other faith communities to suggest that their religions are not in tune with divine will. There are dozens of other gripes, but those two are the main ones.
For what it’s worth, Mormons don’t look down on members of other faiths for their beliefs, and we strive to emulate Christ’s example of brotherly love. I confess that if we did that perfectly, our unfavorables would be lower—but they would still be relatively high.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
The question would have had no impact on the poll, since it came after the candidate preference questions.
The question is a legitimate one, in my opinion, because Romney’s religion will be a factor in some voters’ decision process. We may not like this (I certainly don’t), but I don’t know of anyone who denies it. Therefore questions that attempt to determine how many voters might be affected are of interest to followers of politics.
As others have noted, disapproval of a religion does not necessarily equate with a refusal to vote for a member of that religion, but still the question is a reasonable attempt to gauge the degree to which Mormonism might be a problem for Romney.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Lori,
“It asks only about Mormonism.”
Well, Catholics, evangelicals, Baptists, and Jews aren’t claiming to face hordes of bigoted voters. But many Romney supporters have it in their heads that they are facing a mountain of discrimination.
So why isn’t it legitimate to ask the question, when it is many of YOUR cohorts who are making the claim?
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Lori,
Aside from the malapropism, you are, of course, absolutely correct. Point well taken.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I can’t believe it took 86 comment to have someone object to the Mormon question. *sigh*
MWS, Oh, that sounds all fine and good, doesn’t it – just asking that old familiar refrain of whether Romney’s faith is a liability, blah, blah, blah. The trouble is that it was all anyone on both sides wanted to talk about in 08, and it should be all talked out. Over. Finished. I’m SICK TO DEATH OF IT, and it plays right into the other candidates hands. It IS unAmerican – thank you, Charles.
Not to mention the left. They loved the right all divided over religion. Tickled them pink! And you voted for the guy who started it! How embarrassing it must be for Huck voters. I’m glad that’s not on my conscience ~ seriously.
It’s high time all you Huckanuts had a little lightbulb go off over your heads and admit your guy stinks to HIGH HEAVEN.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
And Aaron, do notice that a plurality of conservatives and moderates especially have avoided passing judgment. Some people are religiously opposed to Mormonism – you’d probably get similar numbers if you polled Mormons about Evangelicals. Liberals tend to be bitter towards religion in general, somewhat less so if it is the religion of a nonwhite person. Most people don’t see the fact that there are almost more Mormons in Latin America than in the US/Canada nowadays and so Mormonism is increasingly less of a “white man’s religion”. And some folks just have bad experiences with Mormons, though it seems that likewise a good percentage of the population has had positive ones, as Mormons themselves are only ~2% of America.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
97. “You’d probably get similar numbers if you polled Mormons about Evangelicals.”
NO, you wouldn’t. I strongly object to that train of thought because it is not even close to reality. It’s 100% untrue.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
As a Mormon, I thought I was on the conservative team most of my life. I supported conservative causes and gave my money. It wasn’t until a Mormon dared to run for POTUS that I learned the sad truth about a lot of people on the right. (People I used to look up to, BTW.) We do have a bigotry problem in the GOP. I don’t know how large it is, but it’s there. And it might keep the best man from winning the nomination – again. Can our country really afford that twice?
Sure, Romney lost for a host of other reasons, but one of them was his faith. It makes me sad that my party wasn’t better than that.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
My objection is to relating religion at all to presidential candidates. Why must we have to examine Romney’s religion and hold him up to such scrutiny? Article 6-remember, no religious test. We do the constitution dishonor to harp on a candidates religion, whatever it is.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Martha,
Spare me. On the one hand, you say you are sick of discussing it, on the other, you are frusterated that it took so long to get around to discussing it on this thread. And why is it that it’s almost always Rombots that raise the issue first on this thread? And then you guys always blame Huck.
Anyway, surely you remember defending Illinoisguy when he insinuated that people should “think about” not voting for Palin because her “weird” religion might hurt us in the general?
http://race42008.com/2009/09/21/ma-healthcare-plan-a-winner-but-not-perfect/#comment-589427
You see, I’m not taking your crap until you condemn what Illinoisguy did, because he did EXACTLY what you accuse Huck of doing, except Illinoisguy actually DID IT! Until then, it is obvious to me that your outrage is self-serving, and you don’t mind at all if religious discrimination hurts other candidates, or if other Mormons play “the religion card.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Lori,
Tell that to Martha. She’s fine with going after Palin’s religion.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
101. MWS, Illinoisguy NEVER said that. You lie.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
102. You lied again.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Martha,
I put the link up there. People can read it and decide for themselves.
That don’t have to rely on you….. (sorry!)
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I grew up Evangelical (attending Evangelical schools K-8), got my degree from an Evangelical seminary, worked for 2 Evangelical churches, raise my children as Evangelicals yet I’m a strong proponent of Gambling and Alcohol (in moderation).
I also have an extremely unfavorable view of Mormonism, yet supported Romney in ‘08 and will do again in ‘12.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
101. A religious question should not be in the poll, period. I wish the entire subject would go away, but it hasn’t.
Gee, I wonder why “Rombots” raise the issue??? MWS, you are NOT that obtuse.
Of course we blame Huck – he was responsible for much of it, and he gave a lot of cover for others. A lot of wink-winks, too.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
You see Martha, everytime I see you playing the religion card- with your righteous indignation, pious outrage, and anathemas, I’m going to bring that up.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Martha,
“Gee, I wonder why “Rombots” raise the issue???”
Seems pretty stupid to me. They bring up the issue, then they complain that the issue keeps getting brought up.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
MWS. Illinoisguy said people should be aware of what has been published about Palin’s religious stuff. He DID NOT – EVER say anyone should not vote for Palin because of her faith.
You have no shame.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
109. Oh, you ARE that obtuse. The poll brought it up, silly.
You’re probably just embarrassed that you voted for a religion-baiter, if not a bigot.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Martha,
Go read the posts again, Martha. They’re right there.
You’re right Illinois did a “What, who me? I’m just sayin’ that other people are sayin…..” but he was pretty clear that Palin’s religion is a problem, he called it “weird” and he said that it’s something people SHOULD THINK ABOUT BEFORE THEY VOTE.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
What would have been nice is if the Mormon question had been roundly criticized long before 86 comments.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
MWS,
Mormons aren’t “claiming” to face hordes of bigoted voters. It’s one of the fundamental historical facts of the last Primary. We didn’t imagine that there were more than 20,000 articles in the media questioning whether Romney could overcome his “Mormon problem.” There actually WERE more than 20,000 media articles with that theme. And a lot of them did a lot more than just raise the question.
When I said earlier that I was thrilled to see that only 34% of the electorate have unfavorable opinions of the church, I was altogether serious. I think the Romney campaign caused a lot of thoughtful people to re-examine their prejudices. I believe we’re making progress on that front—and I also think, for the most part, that it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie. But when the next campaign heats up, they won’t be lying any more, and will need to be confronted, as necessary.
BTW, I don’t think it will be as bad next time.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
112. You are misrepresenting Illinoisguy AGAIN. I hope people do go read the post.
You lie about me. I have never, and will never say or believe that a candidate’s faith is a reason to reject them.
DON’T put words in my mouth, thank you.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Martha,
“The poll brought it up, silly.”
But only the Rombots really wanted to talk about it in the thread. Steven brought it up early. After a quick response, it died, but then some other Rombot brought it up again, and then another, and well, that’s how it goes around here.
Some of you guys are OBSESSED with candidates’ religion.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Dave,
“Mormons aren’t “claiming” to face hordes of bigoted voters.”
Well, Martha and Illinoisguy do.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Martha,
“You lie about me. I have never, and will never say or believe that a candidate’s faith is a reason to reject them.
DON’T put words in my mouth, thank you.”
I didn’t say you said it. Illinoisguy strongly implied it. You just defended him.
So to be precise, you defended the guy who says people should think about Palin’s “weird” religious beliefs before they vote.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
98,
About Evangelical religion, yes. Note the question was not your opinion about Mormons, but about Mormonism. From Mormons about the evangelical movement, 20% would approve of it because they know evangelicals are good people, 30% would disapprove because they don’t know them and they think the religion is crazy thanks to the hostilities of recent years, and the other 50% would withhold judgment. I know plenty of people in both groups, and they are no more or less biased than the other. There are a few bad apples in each one that spoil things for everyone else. Those bad apples almost always occur because of seclusion from ever knowing personally someone from the other group.
We Mormons are odd because we are probably the only major group on the right that claims victim status politically against our political allies. If any Mormon here can speak up about a time when they were actually looked down upon for being a Mormon, I would like to hear it. Honestly I’ve lived outside of the Mormon areas around Utah almost all my life and the worst I ever heard was some dork liberal, America-disparaging history teacher that we always argued with anyways make a joke about us in a history class. Have known lots of Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and none have treated me dishonorably. From my experience, most of us are more afraid about what others may think about us or how they may treat us, and I know because I’ve felt that way before. But that’s simply not the way 99% of the people around you will act. People are either curious or unsure of what to say. In the end, if you are a jerk people will treat you like one, and if you are good, people will respect you. You can be a Muslim in the middle of Alabama, and if people know you to be a good person, you can bet your bottom dollar they will respect you.
And politically speaking, if we have another holy war in the party, I can guarantee you that the nominee will not be either Huckabee or Romney. No one else likes it at all – it takes two to fight as my mom always said – and someone else like Pawlenty will get the nod just like in ‘08. I’d encourage Romney supporters to not carry on about religious discrimination that doesn’t exist in any significant quantity to matter. If we can agree that race is not an issue for support/opposition, I think we can also come to an agreement that neither is religion.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Which would make the question a legitimate one.
In re Illinoisguy: He has not been around lately. Since we know he has had health issues, I hope that’s not a bad sign. Best wishes.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
MPC, I am with you, no one likes it. Religion should have nothing to do with presidential politics and everytime a pollster or news source or pundit brings it up I just cringe. It does dishonor to our American Constitution and harms religious freedom. My advice to all who would play the faith card– don’t go there.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
MWS, You lied about me again. I have never claimed to face hoards of bigoted voters. But there were enough to make a difference in 08. Apparently you just prefer to close your eyes and ears to what was happened with a lot of people in your own party, and what your own candidate did. I can’t relate to cluelessness like that.
You thought you found the golden club to beat the Mormons on here with that link, but anyone who reads it knows you are spinning it far beyond what it ever was. And I think it’s pathetic that you continue to besmirch Illinoisguy. But it doesn’t surprise me. You closed your eyes to the truth a long time ago when yo supported Huck.
120. Yes, Illinoisguy is going through some health issues. We should all remember him in our thoughts and prayers.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
PBA poll: Crist 53%, Rubio 29%
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2009/10/pba-poll-crist-53-rubio-29.html
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Bob,
I was thinking the same thing about Illinoisguy. It’s not like him to not post for this long. Was his cancer that far gone? Hope he’s hanging in there!
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Definitely, and I think the answer to such questions can be a consistent (and obvious) one:
Religion simply isn’t an issue here, because primary voters will pick the best candidate, the one most committed to the task of bringing responsibility back to government.
Romney always needs to be hitting home the real issues here, which will further weaken any religiously-motivated opposition, charges of flip-flopping, etc as petty.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Martha,
“You thought you found the golden club to beat the Mormons on here with that link”
I’m not interested in “beating Mormons.” There you go playing that religion card again (I swear you play that faster than Al Sharpton plays the race card). I’m interested in exposing hypocrisy. You and Illinois have been front and center in impugning the motives of other voters, and then you pull crap like that. It’s got nothing to do with your Mormonism. I get along with most Mormons on this site just fine, because they aren’t outrageous hypocrites.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
119. I don’t agree with your numbers at all. 30% of Mormons do not feel hostile toward evangelicalism, or think it’s crazy.
I don’t see how, after the last election that you can possible believe that “they are no more or less biased than the other” when you talk about Mormons and evangelicals. It flies in the face of everything we know happened in the past 2 years, and the fact that we know many evangelical churches actually preach against Mormonism on a regular basis. We know that there is a market for anti-Mormon literature. It just doesn’t work that way on our side. I reject any notion of equality when it comes to this issues. It is a one-sided war. Then everyone complains when Mormons try to defend themselves. Whiners and victims! Oh brother.
We can argue whether it should just be ignored or not, but we cannot change the facts. Sweeping anti-Mormonism under the rug isn’t really going to help the party move on. We need to face it head on, and shame anyone out of using bigotry to decide elections.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
126. I’m not interested in “beating Mormons.” Yes, you are.
I see that you are going to continue to lie about me and Illinoisguy. You are pathetic. You DO think you have a club to beat Mormons with. Unfortunately there’s this little thing called the truth. I know you are going to pull that out every time the subject of Mormonism comes up here. You plan to do it all the way until 2013, hoping to hurt Romney. You are no better than Huck!
There was no hypocrisy in what Illinoisguy said, or in what I said. I might be outrageous in my comments sometimes, but I am not a hypocrite. That would mean that I believe in using Palin’s faith against her. I DON’T. PERIOD.
You believe in using lies. What does that make you?
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
The thing is, MWS. You know that hardly anyone will go back and read your link. It’s too long, and no one will bother. Therefore, you can just keep repeating the lies. You plan to do this, I know you do. You do think you struck gold. It’s really pathetic.
Illinoiguy is not here to defend himself against your lies. It’s very revealing of your character, though.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Martha,
I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but here goes…………
You do not represent all Mormons.
When I call you out for hypocrisy, I am NOT going after Mormons or Mormonism.
When I link that post, it has nothing to do with Mormonism, but hypocrisy and Illinois’ religion baiting.
His Mormonism does not have anything to do with his religious baiting.
For just about as long as I have “known” you here, you have used and manipulated your religion to play the victim card, be a martyr, and then slander other people. I think that is a disgusting abuse of your religion.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
When voters recognize that Romney’s moral code derives from his beliefs, his religion will be irrelevant. Romney’s persoanl
conduct is second to none and that will be what voters care about come 2012.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
124. I don’t know whether Illinoisguy would want me to say anything or not, but he has had surgery and is undergoing treatment for cancer. I hope we can all remember to say a little prayer for him, or at least keep him in our thoughts. He’s a really nice guy.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Martha,
I hope people do read that link. It’s all there. I can cut and paste some highlights if you’re concerned the truth will be missed.
As for Illinoisguy, I sincerely feel bad about his diagnosis. He is certainly in my prayers. But his medical condition does not excuse his actions.
And YOU can stop hiding behind HIS sickness, as well as your religion.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Republicans accuse Meek of a flip flop — tout Crist’s “fresh perspective”
The National Republican Senatorial Committee is accusing Kendrick Meek of a flip flop for pulling his support for two bills — including one for a single-payer health insurance program.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2009/10/republicans-accuse-meek-of-a-flip-flop-tout-crists-fresh-perspective-.html
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
130 Illinoisguy DID NOT religion-bait. Not at all. I recommend everyone go read the post MWS linked. MWS, you should not get away with lying about Illinoisguy for 2 more years.
“For just about as long as I have “known” you here, you have used and manipulated your religion to play the victim card, be a martyr, and then slander other people. I think that is a disgusting abuse of your religion.”
I’m sorry you think that is what I have done. I have merely defended the idea of no religious test for office, and tried to remind voters what actually happened in 08. But, being a Huck voter, you didn’t really care what happened in 08. You, right along with people like Adam Graham, are perfectly happy to keep you heads stuck in the sand. I think that’s a lot more hypocritical than anything I have done. You pick and choose what facts you want to acknowledge. I think it’s very telling that you are more upset about Mormons like me defending themselves, than in the first offense.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
133. You are sick.
I’m not hiding behind Illinoisguys illness. Your true colors are really showing today. Good.
I’m not hiding behind my religion, either. You’re now grasping at straws. What a knucklehead you are today. Perhaps you should lay off the beer.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Here are Illinoisguy’s comments that MWS is referring to.
“OJ, I’ll be careful in the way I answer this. I viewed the video link in #91 months ago, but for fear of having people come down hard on me, I didn’t share it. However, it is very troubling, to me at least. I hadn’t read the link in 90 before, but I find it even more troubling. Now, I can’t vouch for the varacity of the article, but, if true, it would be very, very damaging to any candidate once the libs began to use it. The video is obviously her standing there as this weird (for lack of a better term) casts devils out of her, or attempts to, or whatever.
All I’m saying is I think it would behoove you and all other supporters to read and view those two links. If they are not troubling to you, then that’s fine, but I do think we need to at least consider the ramifications of what these would mean in the hands of the Democrats. I’m sorry if you hate me for saying this. I’m not wanting to be contentious.
If you’ve already seen/read these before, then fine….I’m just thinking those that care a lot about Sarah needs to at least know these things are out there.”
It really speaks for itself. He just thinks the story could be damaging to Palin.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
MWS has never beat Mormons at all. He’s going at one comment to try to show that charges of anti-Mormonism are potentially hypocritical. I haven’t felt offended by any of his own comments myself.
I know there are evangelical churches that talk about us, of course. I heard about it myself from a few of my friends. And my experience like I mentioned above has always been that regardless whether or not your minister/bishop/etc is going after another religion doctrinally, those beliefs simply don’t filter down into the actions of most people. Because only a genuine jerk is going to take his own religious beliefs and mistreat someone because of them. And of these few none of whom I’ve encountered personally, I’ve heard of plenty of evangelicals that have stood up to the unfair treatment given by a few of their colleagues (for most of whom, the differences are doctrinal, not personal). The more theologically inclined are typically gentlemanly enough to know to treat Mormons respectfully despite a theological divide. You know, just like how practicing Mormons know to treat other people who are not members of our faith
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Martha, to be fair on that, IG clearly did not mean to offend anyone and went out of his way to say so, but to see that and say “we can’t run Palin because she’s associated with this” would be like saying “we can’t run Romney because Mormons have that crazy temple ceremony”. It’s unfair, innocently so, but still unfair.
For Palin too, religion is not an issue, and the voters will pick the best candidate for the job.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Martha,
“It really speaks for itself. He just thinks the story could be damaging to Palin.”
AHHHH! But what of those who think Mitt’s religious beliefs “could be damaging?” Is THAT a legitimate concern, or “bigotry.”
He also wrote this:
“No, OJ, praying over people is fine. We do so also. I just found the the things he was saying prior to and during the ritual as strange, but like I said above, it’s the article that is much more strange, and that’s the one that could be held up to ridicule if it’s true. I just wanted the supporters to be aware of it. Personally, I think it’s very damaging, but that’s just my opinion.”
And this:
“Well, I don’t know if the article is even half true, but if it is, it would be a very big problem for her, and thus, for us as the Republican party.”
And this in reference to Democrats attacking what Illinois’ described as “weird” and “strange” religious beliefs:
“I wasn’t saying anything other than making sure we knew all knew the ammunition they had to work with.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
My two cents:
The race is looking good for us and not Obama. Huck is being helped by his show because he can come across well and doesn’t have opposition.
Regarding the other topic here, I think any polls about religions should be separate from this one and should include a host of religions. Otherwise you just have a liberal polling firm making people think it does. People in the media who see this poll will bring it up and people at home who see coverage of this poll will see the focus on Mormonism and think it matters. I think that is wrong. I know that Huckabee used religion as a weapon in 2008 and I know others on the right did so as well. We have seen the videos here and we know the actors on the right who suffer from “I’m a bigot” disease. When Huckabee comes back in 12 i won’t use 2008 against him but I don’t have any doubts that other people on the right will use religion as a weapon again. If you think that isn’t the case then frankly you are naive.
All that said, i am reasonably OK with most religions although I blame many of the historical problems of Latin American on the Church.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Martha,
Please explain the difference in intent between the following two quotes:
Quote #1:
“I just found the the things he was saying prior to and during the ritual as strange, but like I said above, it’s the article that is much more strange, and that’s the one that could be held up to ridicule if it’s true. I just wanted the supporters to be aware of it. ”
and Quote #2:
“Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?”
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
142,
First person is ignorant and the second isn’t.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
#142 Can I answer? I think the first was a comment made by a single voter on a political blog, the other was asked by a
presidential candidate in an interview that became national news.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Mcon,
No. The first quote in #142 states explicitly what Martha has always assumed that the second quote is implying.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
And for the record, I have stated on this site before that the infamous “Satan and Jesus” quote was a probably a cheap shot. I don’t presume to know what Huck intended for that question, or whether he wanted to stir a public debate about the issue. But is was something he should not have said. He’s admitted as much, and apologized. Illinois stated explicitly that voters’ should think about how damaging her religious beliefs might be before voting for her. He stated that her religious beliefs should be a concern for all Republicans.
That’s a fact, and none of Martha’s slanders or name calling or religion baiting will change that.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
145,
Not quite. Illinois is an ignorant bystander who sees something he thinks is weird. He then rightly or wrongly passes that info on. Huckabee is NOT ignorant of Mormon beliefs. He knew the answer to that question and knew it would push buttons in the religious crowd. If you don’t believe that is the case then i’ve got some ocean front mansions in Arizona.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:51 pm
It should also be noted that this is a triumph for Palwenty, as he is now taken seriously enough to be polled.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee won’t get the nominee in 2012. The conservatives don’t want them. Romney is not conservative and he is a ‘liar’. Huckabee was the Governor of Arkansas he raised high taxes. I don’t know about Palin. She might run or not run in 2012. I don’t believe in polls. It is just too early to tell. I don’t think New Jersey will get a Republican Governor this year because of the Independent candidate might take away the vote from Mr. Christie. Mr. Christie is not conservative. He doesn’t want Sarah Palin to campaign for him and he prefered Romney. It is going to be a tight race. The Republican conservatives are trying to get rid of the Rhinos Republican like Romney, Lindsey Graham of SC, Michael Steele, and John McCain. The Republican Party need to come clean.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Oh really?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/20/tech/main3524730.shtml
Certainly, though, his question wasn’t innocent or fair. He did however admit it and apologized.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Stay tuned for Huckabee’s grand inquiry for the 2012 campaign: Doesn’t Palin engage in some crazy rituals? In fact, I think
there is be a tape. Why, yes! I just happen to have it here in my hands. But lets not broadcast it. That would be low and as a
Christain leader, I’m better than political cheap shots…
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
149,
A “clean” Republican Party, throwing out everyone to the left of Sean Hannity sure would be a great idea… or not
And I don’t suppose you think Bob McDonnell is conservative? He didn’t take up Palin’s invitation to come either.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Taylor, I’m hoping that 2008 saw the end of promised devastating tapes…
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
By and by, I only bring up that link when Martha, Knickers, Illinois, and Co. play the religion card and try to start a flame war on this site, impugning the integrity and motives of Republican candidates and their supporters.
My hope is that someday we can move past that sort of religion baiting.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I have a hard time imagining a political poll on Lieberman that asks, Who would you vote for? Candidate X or Lieberman? Ok.
Next question. What do you think of Jews?
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
146. MWS,
“He stated that her religious beliefs should be a concern for all Republicans.”
NO, he didn’t. He said the video of Palin and the casting out of devils would be a concern because of what the democrats would do with it. He did NOT say Palin’s faith should be a concern for all Republicans.
You have to admit that the casting out of devils fits right into the template of the MSM’s desire to cast us all as religious fanatics. Just look at the way they skewered Jindal about his admission to some kind of exorcism.
Mormons also believe in the casting out of bad spirits – it’s right there in the scriptures. So, don’t tell me that Illinoisguy meant to imply that Palin’s religious beliefs are suspect. He didn’t. He said the video was weird and possible damaging.
Casting out devils is weird. My faith is weird. I don’t really care who says so. I just object to someone using religion against a candidate, and/or lying about my faith. THAT is what this is all about, MWS.
But, you still don’t get it, do you?
BTW – You are the slanderer here today, and doing plenty of name-calling. Outrageous hypocrite? I don’t think I said anything remotely that offensive about you.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Well, Jews are sort of in a class of their own. No other religion had six million members murdered for their beliefs by an insane dictator and an indifferent populace in the past century.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Taylor,
I think it’s pretty clear that the question was asked because a lot of folks (including some on this site) think there is a lot of bigotry holding Mitt back. I think this was an attempt by the pollster to try to quantify that.
Like I said above, I GUARANTEE Romney ‘08 polled the Mormon issue.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
154. We don’t play the religion card, MWS. We respond.
Perhaps you should worry more about the bigots in your party than the ones who don’t want to put up with it anymore.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Martha,
“He did NOT say Palin’s faith should be a concern for all Republicans.”
Um. Yeah, he did. Unless you want to split hair between “concern” (your word) and “big problem” (his words). Here is what he said (again):
“Well, I don’t know if the article is even half true, but if it is, it would be a very big problem for her, and thus, for us as the Republican party.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
MWS,
Why did you vote for Huck?
Why didn’t his real blatant religion-baiting bother you, when imagined religion-baiting bothers you now?
Did the 1000 pardons bother you at all?
Did you mind that Huck used religion to get votes?
Did it bother you that Huck was the ultimate hypocrite, claiming to be a “Christian Leader” when his actions were anything but Christian – or even honest?
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
anonymous,
Congratulations on your contined progress with the English language and your increasing grasp of the subtleties and nuances of Republican presidential politics. Huckabee certainly “raised high taxes.” And, it sure is true that Sarah may not run. Also, the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign certainly is tight, and it appears that Christie prefers Romney….at least he prefers him to Sarah.
Keep this up, and you’ll figure out that Romney isn’t a RINO or a liar. Kudos to your alter ego.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
160. You made a giant leap. IG neither said, nor meant that.
Pure bull.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Martha,
“I just object to someone using religion against a candidate, and/or lying about my faith. THAT is what this is all about”
Which is exactly what he did. He said her religious beliefs could be a “big problem” for the Republican Party.
Now put your religion card away, please.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Martha,
“IG neither said, nor meant that.”
I QUOTED him. Do I have to post the direct link???????
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:40 pm
MWS, Martha,
OK, if either of you is holding out to get the last word in here, it could be that neither of you will get any sleep tonight. I actually like both of you, although I confess that I generally agree with Martha on these things. But it’s time to give peace a chance and obey the 11th commandment. You can interpret that either as Ronald Reagan’s “Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republican.” Or you can interpret it as Jesus Christ’s admonition: “And a new commandment I give unto you; that you love one another.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
OT:
Mark Levin just read from Sarah Palin’s Facebook that she is endorsing Doug Hoffman.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Dave, you’re right. But IG absolutely did not say what MWS is saying he said.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
MWS, just one more thing.
Will you please at least answer one of my questions in 161?
Why didn’t his real blatant religion-baiting bother you, when imagined religion-baiting bothers you now?
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Illinoisguy didn’t even quote the part of the links that could cause the most problems. I will not do so either, but suffice it to say that if Huckabee were to ask the obvious ‘innocent’ question relating to Palin’s religion, I think a poll specifically asking about favorability of Palin’s particular sect would show worse numbers for her religion than what this showed for the LDS.
Furthermore, I would tend to somewhat agree with MPC about what polls of other religions would show. LDS are a small portion of any of these polls, so the vast majority of the those being polled are other than LDS. Evangelicals and Catholics are a large block in a poll. I would submit that if only those outside of the religion being polled were used for the favorable/unfavorable, that the numbers would not look much better, if any, for them.
Although Mitt’s religion was a significant factor last time, I’m not so sure it will be this time.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Conservative,
I agree with the rest of your post, but on your last point I don’t completely agree. It won’t be nearly as much of a factor, but it will be there. Our job will be to do what we can to minimize it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
“But IG absolutely did not say what MWS is saying he said.”
http://race42008.com/2009/09/21/ma-healthcare-plan-a-winner-but-not-perfect/#comment-589452
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Dave, you may be right, but it must be a small factor, since Mitt has had the lowest total, tied for lowest, or within one of lowest whenever people are asked what candidate would they least likely vote for in the GOP primary….being around 9%, and even that total is only partially a religion question. Some do not trust him yet (for whatever reason). Some apparently have no appreciation for his credentials, and love of country.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Conservative,
“ince Mitt has had the lowest total, tied for lowest, or within one of lowest whenever people are asked what candidate would they least likely vote for in the GOP primary….being around 9%, and even that total is only partially a religion question.”
???? What do you mean that is only a partially religion question? I’m not following you there.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
MWS, what I am saying is that the 9% certainly represents some other things besides the disapproval of his religion.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Or his ‘08 campaign that went off the deep end
But that’s beside the point, because I think Romney’s put that behind him entirely. The real issue is, yes, religion is only a teeny, tiny, 1% issue as that poll goes to show. There are plenty of reasons given by people on this board alone as to why one should never vote for Romney, to easily make up that percentage of “never vote for”
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Holy crap! What in the world is going on? GUYS, GET OFF IT. Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty….maybe even Palin….they are ALL better than Obama. I don’t care if one is a mormon, another is a religion bater, one is a convert, another is a woman….WHO CARES? This is ridiculous! Support whoever you want in the primary, but if you don’t support the nominee once they become the nominee…then you ARE an idiot. I regret not voting for McCain…though it would’ve made no difference anyways. But i’ll tell you, 4 years of Obama is going to be WAY MORE THAN ENOUGH. I’ll take any of these people over Obama. Don’t care if they insulted me personally. If Mitt Romney walked up to me and called my momma fat…i’d still vote for him over Obama…and i can’t stand Mitt. Debate how its going to effect the campaign, debate what this poll means…but stop hating on everyone. If this is all we do, then it will be that much easier for obama to win. Don’t say, “it’s not me, it’s the other people”. It’s everyone. We all have done it. If romney gets the nod, i’ll vote for him in the general, same with huck, tim, sarah….doesn’t matter. They are all miles above obama the socialist nazi dictator.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Senate Majority Leader Reid Leaning Toward ‘Public Option’ for Insurance
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/senate-majority-leader-reid-leaning-toward-public-option-for-insurance/?hp
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 pm
172. It’s not there. You said,
“He stated that her religious beliefs should be a concern for all Republicans.”
IG NEVER SAID THAT. It’s not there, MWS. Clean up your act.
You also said,
“He said that (Palin’s religion) is something people SHOULD THINK ABOUT BEFORE THEY VOTE.”
He didn’t say that either.
Will you please post ALL of IG’s comments from that thread? We would all like to see what the H you’re talking about.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Did it for you:
OJ, I’ll be careful in the way I answer this. I viewed the video link in #91 months ago, but for fear of having people come down hard on me, I didn’t share it. However, it is very troubling, to me at least. I hadn’t read the link in 90 before, but I find it even more troubling. Now, I can’t vouch for the varacity of the article, but, if true, it would be very, very damaging to any candidate once the libs began to use it. The video is obviously her standing there as this weird (for lack of a better term) casts devils out of her, or attempts to, or whatever.
All I’m saying is I think it would behoove you and all other supporters to read and view those two links. If they are not troubling to you, then that’s fine, but I do think we need to at least consider the ramifications of what these would mean in the hands of the Democrats. I’m sorry if you hate me for saying this. I’m not wanting to be contentious.
If you’ve already seen/read these before, then fine….I’m just thinking those that care a lot about Sarah needs to at least know these things are out there.
Illinoisguy Says:
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:09 am
No, OJ, praying over people is fine. We do so also. I just found the the things he was saying prior to and during the ritual as strange, but like I said above, it’s the article that is much more strange, and that’s the one that could be held up to ridicule if it’s true. I just wanted the supporters to be aware of it. Personally, I think it’s very damaging, but that’s just my opinion.
Illinoisguy Says:
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:52 am
STOP IT! I was not attacking anybody. I was saying in as nice a way as possible that there are things that could possibly hurt her, and thus, us, as a party.
“If I see it, I’m calling you out. Do you really want to have a debate over whether “weird” religious beliefs should disqualify a candidate for POTUS?” Do you??????
I wasn’t saying anything other than making sure we knew all knew the ammunition they had to work with.
Everything that can be said has been said against my beliefs, the vast majority of it lies.
I’ve never retaliated by pointing out the countless number of things about other religions that could easily be exploited, and I don’t intend to.
YOU are the hypocrite MWS. you sat there for years and allowed others to bring up Mitt’s religion as being a possible problem, but the minuted that I, very carefully, asserted the liberals may have too much fodder before their faces to pass up, you jump all over me! GRRRRRRRRRR!! You are such a hypocrite!!! And I’m finding you more and more to be a hateful person.
I’m not ashamed of any of the LDS beliefs!! Can you say the same about yours, i.e. such things as the inquisition?
OJ, there was nothing gentlemanly about the way he just lamblasted me! I meant no harm whatsoever.
He twists everything he can possible twist to the detriment of Mitt Romney. He’s really been bad the past few weeks, worse tha in the past, and he was certainly hateful in what he just threw our way.
I was putting that post there for the benefit of the Palin supporters. I wasn’t intending to say anything more about it, but you have fueled it, and I think you did so intentionally, as you usually do every chance you get.
It’s absolutely unbelievable to me that after the few thousand posts we’ve had on here mentioning Mitt’s religion, that when I post something intended to be a one time only prompting for the Sarah supporters, that you jump down my throat with both feet! Well, I’m calling you out for being #1 hypocrite.
OJ, you criticize knickers for responding to MWS’s challenge. He initiated it, not her, and you let him off the hok. This would not have gone past a few comments if MWS hadn’t jumped in. Then he puts down a number of things that he perceives would be a problem for LDS to respond to, and again, no criticism from you.
MWS – You are doing this because you hope that this will become a big ‘free for all’, and that your new candidate remains unscathed.
Amen to what Jerald and Martha have said above. I meant no harm at all. I wanted to make sure that the Palin supporters knew what was actually out there….that’s all…..no more, no less, and I think that’s the way it was taken until MWS’s divisiveness jumped into the thread.
Romney didn’t comment on here today, I did! I am a commenter. Romney’s religion has been discussed 100 times more than Palin’s and it didn’t seem to be a problem for you that it was. But the minute that I just simply encouraged Sarah supporters to take a look at what someone else had posted, you lamblasted me for it.
Somehow, MWS, I didn’t see any of your “quotes” from IG.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I’m not sure the inquisition qualifies as a “belief” — but would you consider it Mormon-bashing if someone brought up, say, Mountain Meadows?
If that is irrelevant to Mormonism today, and merely an unfortunate incident when taken in the context of the overall history of the LDS church and its people (as I think it is), then isn’t the inquisition much the same when taken in the 2000 year history of the Catholic church?
And isn’t it rather hypocritical of you to bring it up while whining, as you endlessly do, about anti-Mormonism?
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 am
181. Bob, those are all IG quotes above. MWS has been flat out lying about what he said, and I just wanted to get them all out there. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear. I myself, have never raised one single question or accusation about any other religion.
But, to answer your question, no, I wouldn’t. The Mountain Meadows massacre is a legitimate question of LDS history. It’s been mis-portrayed, unfortunately.
Also Bob. I’m sorry that you misunderstand me. I think our party should be better than to tolerate – and in many cases – promote bigotry. It’s the same thing as racism to me. I think it really stinks that a lot of Republicans turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to what happened to Mormons in the last election. Mormons have earned their place in the party, and deserve more respect than that.
But really, you just have a particular distaste for me personally, so there’s probably not much I can say to change your mind.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
[...] from the poll conducted November 13-15 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 16-19 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 18-21 are in curly brackets. Results [...]