Ron Paul's strong showing in Nevada -- it looks like he'll come in second -- should rejuvenate the hopes of any supporters dismayed by his disappointing finish in New Hampshire. Judging from CNN's entrance polls, here's the most interesting aspects of his success:
He's dominating the independent vote. That shouldn't be a surprise, but it's worth stressing. A full 63 percent of independent voters in the Republican caucuses backed him. McCain is a very distant second, with 11 percent.
He's doing pretty well with Hispanics. I was all set to post an early entrance poll that had Paul in a statistical tie for the lead among Hispanic Republicans, but the new numbers have him finishing third, with 15 percent. (Romney finished first, and McCain is second.) Still, 15 percent is nothing to sneer at, and it's an interesting counterpoint to Paul's support among the Minuteman crowd. A rainbow coalition!
His support reaches across economic classes. It is often noted that the libertarian movement is predominantly white and male. It is less often noted that its class composition is extremely diverse, ranging from multimillionaires to people practically living on the street. In Nevada, Paul seems to be doing respectably among voters at all income levels, with his best showings among the middle and lower-middle classes.
The antiwar vote lives. Among people who cited Iraq as the most important issue in the election, Paul got 29 percent of the vote. Only Romney did better.
The "other" Christians like him. I'm not sure what to make of this, but while Romney carried the Protestant, Catholic, and (of course) Mormon vote, Paul got a plurality of "other Christian" ballots. Anyone care to speculate what sects those might be? (If you say "Branch Davidian," you get a raspberry.)
Elsewhere in Reason: My take on the "libertarian west."
Update: CNN is continuing to update its numbers, so some of those figures are now obsolete. I should note that Romney has pulled ahead of Paul in that mysterious "other Christian" category, though his lead is narrow. On the other hand, Paul has the overwhelming support of the "no religion" demographic -- not a group that usually flexes its muscles in Republican politics.
Paul's support in the other categories has also dropped by a few percentage points, though there haven't been any radical changes. I'll update this post with the final numbers once they're available.
Update #2: Nearly a day later, there are two significant changes to Paul's totals. First: His Hispanic support has dipped to 7 percent, which isn't atrocious -- most of the candidates not named Romney or McCain are clumped around the same area -- but also isn't as interesting as I initially thought. Second: He's still in second place among voters citing Iraq as their top issue, but he's now tied with McCain at 21 percent each. So while Nevada's antiwar constituency is still lively, the local pro-surge contingent is active as well. (Either that, or this is a replay of New Hampshire's curious results, in which many antiwar voters fell behind the passionately pro-war McCain.)
Paul still dominates the independent vote, though his total there now stands at 51 percent. (McCain is second, with 13 percent.) As for those "other" Christians, several readers point out that their ranks would include the various Eastern Orthodox churches. I wouldn't expect there to be many Orthodox worshippers in the Silver State, but there's more than zero, and that's all you need. I figure there's a fair number of LDS splinter groups in Nevada, too; I'm not sure if they'd be counted as "other" or as Mormons.
Finally, I'll note that among the small number of Republican voters making $15,000 to $30,000 a year, Paul finished second with 19 percent of the vote -- a product, perhaps, of his populist approach to libertarianism. First place went to Romney, who got 53 percent -- a product, perhaps, of hallucinogens in the drinking water.
Ron Paul's Numbers
Comments to "Ron Paul's Numbers":
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 1:59pm | #
'other' Christians would include Eastern Orthodox, and they might also be including sects like the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.crimethink | January 19, 2008, 2:01pm | #
I'm not sure what heading Messianic Jews would come under, either. Needless to say, I doubt any of these groups are very large in Nevada.Jesse Walker | January 19, 2008, 2:01pm | #
How many Orthodox voters are there in Nevada?Jesse Walker | January 19, 2008, 2:02pm | #
(Never mind, I just saw your second comment. I agree.)I wonder if Mormon splinter groups are counted as "Mormon" or "other."
Fluffy | January 19, 2008, 2:03pm | #
If you take out Mitt's cult votes, Paul and Mitt would have gone to the wire on this.And yes, now that Mitt has scored 95% of the vote among Mormons, we can dispense with any further discussion of whether Mormonism is a cult. Those numbers go beyond cult status to fucking ant farm status.
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 2:05pm | #
I wonder if they broke down the votes by Nevada residents vs. Mormons shipped in from neighboring states to vote for Mitt.Justin Raimondo | January 19, 2008, 2:07pm | #
Matt Welch must be so disappointed.phocion | January 19, 2008, 2:09pm | #
Look at the breakdown by geography for Paul:Washoe County: 31%
Clark County: 16%
Rural Nevada: 17%
Maybe the Bunny Ranch has really been getting the word out to its regular customers.
I wish in their exit polls there was a breakdown by age/money. There are plenty of young people with decent money who love RP, but old people with lots of money seem to fill their catheter bags when there is Republican talk about Ron Paul.
never knew there were so many racist bigots and conspriacy theorist in Nevada.
Yeah, but Mr. Doherty must be doing a freewheelin' happy dance.
charlie | January 19, 2008, 2:18pm | #
But... but... Paul's a fringe crackpot racist who singlehandedly destroyed the appeal of libertarianism... right?It must be true, I read it in Reason.
K-J | January 19, 2008, 2:19pm | #
I was curious about the "other Christians" category also.Many high church Episcopalians wouldn't consider themselves Protestant, but it's not as though Nevada is some great bastion of Anglicanism...
adrian | January 19, 2008, 2:19pm | #
keep digging up the racist bullshit! nothing else has helped the campaign as much. get writing!Click 'n' Learn | January 19, 2008, 2:22pm | #
"Other" includes Reform Larouchians, Sc|ent0l0gists, Heaven's Gate followers, and Raelians. And Unitarians.As for the "Hispanics" bit, perhaps a "libertarian" magazine should fight against rather than buy into identity politics.
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 2:26pm | #
Most Arab Christians are some variety of Eastern Orthodox, and I could see why they would support Dr Paul.GILMORE | January 19, 2008, 2:31pm | #
Whew! I was worried for a second that there would be a lull in the Ron Paul coverage for like, 5 minutes. Thank jeebus.oh, and Lonewacko? You're (still) an asshole, and in this case, a repetitive and boring one.
You've been doing the "(quote-unquote)Libertarian"...& "for a magazine called Reason..." thing now on repeat. Why dont you take your act to where maybe even *one* person wont consider you a complete screaming idiot. As it is, it's painfully dull and contemptable.
Basically, NO ONE HERE HAS EVER AGREED WITH YOUR STUPID FUCKING PLATFORM AND, GIVEN YOUR M.O., NEVER WILL.
PLease just go away and weep about the taco invasion somewhere else.
Jonathan Goff | January 19, 2008, 2:34pm | #
Rubberman Romney got 94% of the LDS vote in Nevada? That's kind of surprising actually. I'm LDS, and of the people I know, I would've thought Paul or McCain would've done better than they did. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority went for Romney still (in a knee-jerk, at least he probably believes the same things I do kind of way), but 94% make me sick.~Jon
LevStrauss | January 19, 2008, 2:39pm | #
He needs to tell the truth on that newsletter stuff but who are you going to root for? Who are you going to vote for? Not much of a choice in those two categories. Yes Ron is lying about business activities that happened over a decade ago, but he's running against people that live off of shady business practices and continue to do so, also you still have a congressional record that cannot be disputed.As a side note, I hope Duncan beats Giuliani. Duncan has some horrible positions but Rudy is a frightening a candidate we have ever had in my lifetime. A complete egomaniac, with shady friends, and shady business practices with those friends. Does anybody truly think that he would give a damn about Federalism? Also do you trust that guy with a militarized Federal "Law" Enforcement at his disposal?
Colin | January 19, 2008, 2:39pm | #
The NBC exit polls break it down by income.Guy | January 19, 2008, 2:39pm | #
Many of us who could be called Baptist or Protesetant choose to put ourselves in the "other Christian" category.As for JW's, it does not seem to make sense to call a group that denies the deity of Christ to be Christian.
Francisco Torres | January 19, 2008, 2:40pm | #
Paul's right now in third place in the NV caucus, ahead of Thompson, Ghouliani, Huckabee and the other guy. This race is getting really interesting now.Free to Choose | January 19, 2008, 2:40pm | #
Ron Paul baby!!Free Men, Free Minds, Free Markets! Paul all the way.
LevStrauss | January 19, 2008, 2:41pm | #
Tom Cruise had kind words for Ron, I bet we get some scientologists. Rons got to get them to donate, they'll spend money on anything.joe | January 19, 2008, 2:45pm | #
Tom Cruise had kind words for Ron, I bet we get some scientologists. Rons got to get them to donate, they'll spend money on anything.Xenutarians?
J sub D | January 19, 2008, 2:46pm | #
That preview stuff is just for wimps. Real men make fools out of themselves instead.Does anybody truly think that he would give a damn about Federalism? Also do you trust that guy with a militarized Federal "Law" Enforcement at his disposal?
Eric Dondero does. But he appears to be the only one.
Adam Selene | January 19, 2008, 2:49pm | #
charlie:But... but... Paul's a fringe crackpot racist who singlehandedly destroyed the appeal of libertarianism... right?Well, first, no one has argued that he is personally a crackpot or a racist here that I've seen. That said, have you met the voters in Nevada? Getting excited about Paul's appeal in Nevada doesn't seem like a good idea.
joe | January 19, 2008, 2:50pm | #
,i>That preview stuff is just for wimps. Real men make fools out of themselves instead.her herre!
Carol | January 19, 2008, 2:51pm | #
The posters saying that Romney got the Mormon vote solely because of his religion are intellectually lazy -- or just bigots. There are many LDS Ron Paul supporters, including my own husband.Mormons may turn out in high numbers for Romney because he is really the best candidate other than Paul -- and they lack the religious bigotry that deters those who would otherwise vote for Romney -- who would like him just fine if he were a Methodist, say....
Mormons aren't voting for Romney BECAUSE he is a Mormon, but they do likely feel greater assurance about what his beliefs are than those who have been fed a steady diet of anti-Mormon hate speech every week in Sunday School since the time they were 4.
joe | January 19, 2008, 2:53pm | #
Carol, 94% is 94%.He didn't just "win them." He didn't even "win them in a landslide."
Fidel Castro gets 94% by not letting anyone else on the ballot.
LevStrauss | January 19, 2008, 2:54pm | #
Well that is how the Libertarians will grow. We will get plenty of kooks, but we will get more mainstream voters as time passes, hopefully there will be something left to save. As people's pet peeves with regards to issues get trampled on, we get more people. It will be a collection of one issue voters. We get truthers, we get potheads, we get birchers, we get the Christian Identity folks, we get people who oppose a big brother society, we get the online poker enthusiasts, we get fiscal conservatives, we get social liberals, we get anti imperialists, etc. Then as this disgusting Federal Democracy progresses we get more and more people once they get left out in the cold.Adam Selene | January 19, 2008, 2:57pm | #
Lev, I won't argue with your comment. I am just saying that using Nevada to crow about how well Paul is doing, turning things around, etc. is not a very smart idea. I'm from N. California and I know that you get a lot of fringe folks in Nevada. Claiming anything other than that is intellectually dishonest.J sub D | January 19, 2008, 2:57pm | #
Well, first, no one has argued that he is personally a crackpot or a racist here that I've seen. That said, have you met the voters in Nevada? Getting excited about Paul's appeal in Nevada doesn't seem like a good idea.When your a conspiracy true believer, everyone who isn't with you, is just more evidence of the conspiracy.
Hey, I voted for Ron Paul. Those stupid newsletters are embarrassing, wrong, and ultimately, his fault. Any fallout from those stupid, moneymaking newsletters is, hold on to your hats, Ron Pauls fault. If you really believe that Reason staffers were part of some conspiracy with TNR, I strongly suggest that you check out the 9/11 truthers. I hear they're looking for a few gullible men.
Adam Selene | January 19, 2008, 3:00pm | #
Hey J Sub D, good points. Don't expect the Paulestinians to agree, though. As you said, not agreeing with a conspiracy theorist is akin to publicly announcing that the conspiracy is true.Kolohe | January 19, 2008, 3:01pm | #
To be fair to the 94% figure indicating a cult, what % of African-Americans will vote for Obama in next weeks SC primary, not to mention a hypothetical Obama-Any Republican race in the general?tepid | January 19, 2008, 3:01pm | #
We need not an image consultant's deconstruction of the Paul campaign.Policy prescriptions and voting record. In short, perspective.
prolefeed | January 19, 2008, 3:05pm | #
If you take out Mitt's cult votes, Paul and Mitt would have gone to the wire on this.And yes, now that Mitt has scored 95% of the vote among Mormons, we can dispense with any further discussion of whether Mormonism is a cult. Those numbers go beyond cult status to fucking ant farm status.
Fluffy, have you ever gone to a Mormon ward and talked politics with the members, as I do pretty much every Sunday?
Maybe, just maybe, Fluffy, Mitt did so well among Mormons because his political views are just like most of their political views, and because he deliberately hit on LDS talking points that none of the other candidates had the inside knowledge to exploit? Yes, there are many Mormons who reflexively would vote for any Mormon. But, would you call black voters an ant-farm cult because over 90% of them vote for Democrats, election after election? Or that gays are an ant-farm cult because they, too, vote over 90% for Democrats?
P.S. I'm one of those LDS NOT voting for Romney.
Colin | January 19, 2008, 3:05pm | #
Paul's actually votes seem to be lower than the exit polls indicated. Perhaps this will change as the day continues, but Paul's exit numbers in Michigan -- if I recall correctly -- were almost twice what he actually got.joe | January 19, 2008, 3:05pm | #
Kolohe,1. Between on half and 2/3, which is not 94%, or even close to it.
2. There's a difference between a general election, with the stark difference between the parties, and a primary, in which the politics of all of the candidates is roughly comparable.
joe | January 19, 2008, 3:07pm | #
You know, close to 99% of Republicans vote for the Republican candidate in a general election.Which really isn't the same thing as picking one Republican out of a field of Republicans. At all.
GILMORE | January 19, 2008, 3:07pm | #
We get truthers, we get potheads, we get birchers, we get the Christian Identity folks, we get people who oppose a big brother society, we get the online poker enthusiasts, we get fiscal conservatives, we get social liberals, we get anti imperialists, etc.And "we" get lonewacko.
At some point, you may say, "wait a minute. There's only LOSERS at this kegger now? WHat happened??"
There's no reason for any further Reason for me. Is Murdoch coming in as a board member now?
P.S. I was talking about Primary Romney TM's political views, not Massachusett Romney TM's views. Those, not so acceptable to LDS folks.
Maria | January 19, 2008, 3:11pm | #
I'm a Latino woman in Massachusetts. I managed not to faint as I changed my party affiliation from Green to Republican this month, so I could vote for Ron Paul.I may not agree with Paul on everything, but compared to all the other candidates declared so far, Ron Paul is the only one who won't expand the empire internationally or the police state at home, he has a healthy regard for the constitution, and despite being a Christian, he seems to be able to live and let live.
The constitution has the status of a floor rag under this administration. Paul may be able to provide some shock therapy to the country to get it back on track as a free society.
Eric | January 19, 2008, 3:14pm | #
Y'know, we are all frustrated at the treatment Ron Paul has gotten in the press, but I think in light of that, supporters of Paul need to be very diligent in not coming off as ranting bigots.When posters here make the assumption that Romney won Nevada only because Mormons were trucked in from Utah to vote for him, well, we sound like bigots -- which is what the majority of the bad press surrounding Ron Paul has been about. We confirm the speculation.
Mormons have voted for candidates outside their religion for every past presidential election since the founding of their church. They haven't exactly opted out of the political process because they didn't have a candidate of their own....
Up till Nevada, Romney was already getting the majority of the popular vote. He already had the most delegates, which indicates he was already pretty popular with those who don't let religion deter them. Now then, Romney was already a strong candidate, and obviously Mormons are not going to be deterred by his religion like a certain percentage of the McCain/Huckabee voters are. It is reasonable that a high percentage would support Romney.
But there are plenty of Mormon Paul supporters, and some donate heavily. I think rants against Mormons here might turn their stomachs a bit.
We need to take the high road or we make Ron Paul look bad. News articles frequently cite the writings of Paul supportes commenting on news articles. Ron Paul is not a bigot, so why are we...?
Adam Selene | January 19, 2008, 3:15pm | #
Maria:I'm a Latino woman in Massachusetts. I managed not to faint as I changed my party affiliation from Green to Republican this month, so I could vote for Ron Paul.Uhhhh, you're not really helping with the argument that Paul can appeal beyond the fringe.
GILMORE | January 19, 2008, 3:16pm | #
Gene | January 19, 2008, 3:07pm | #There's no reason for any further Reason for me.
IS someone keeping count of all the non-Reason readers coming here to declare their permanent and final non-Reason readership forever due to what they see as unfair (aka "not fellating him nonstop") coverage of Ron Paul?
I dont just mean the incidence (#), but also the variants.
This one was funny in that it was probably an unintential double-entendre...
no reason for any further Reason for me.
i.e. "I declare full abandonment of my rational faculties because your magazine is causing a pain in my head which I used to recognize as cognitive dissonance, but since joining a 'movement', I now recognize as the insidious mind-warping ray guns of the unbelievers in the conspiracy to hide The Truth"
John-David | January 19, 2008, 3:17pm | #
Romney slayed in the counties abutting Utah. Saying that is not bigoted, although the "trucking them Mormons in" conspiracy theory might be.GILMORE | January 19, 2008, 3:19pm | #
Eric | January 19, 2008, 3:14pm | #Y'know, we are all frustrated at the treatment Ron Paul has gotten in the press...
Speak for yourself homie. Many if not most here really dont give a shit frankly. All the weep-and-moaning i've heard has been from Paulistinians coming here to rant about the unfair coverage *here*
but I think in light of that, supporters of Paul need to be very diligent in not coming off as ranting bigots
truer words never spoken.
Problem being - you're about 200,000-word posts late this week. I'm still trying to mop the leftover froth off the floor.
maybe you Romney fans should consider what it is about Paul that draws in the right wing extremist vote(ie 9.11 truthers/etc). sure says something about the beliefs of fundementalist far right extremists, given that they would rather have a proven* small government libertarian, with real goals to abolish the IRS, DOE and military empiricism. not suprisingly, your darling pseudo-con Mitt is noticeably quiet on government downsizing.. never so much as suggesting the elimination of any existing beurocracies; never mind how we pay for perpetual warfare with a unmanageable deficit. its actually quite revealing that the Republican party in general would so cavalierly abandon the principles of limited government, almost solely to appease socialist warhawks in the state department(and the citizen minions) who believe its our duty to police the world by enforcing universal secularism. but the Lord knows we deserve the government we get... so thank you pseudo-Cons! youve become graduates of liberalism
SimpleCJ | January 19, 2008, 3:21pm | #
The Associated Press has released an EARLY declaration of the winner as being Mit Romney by a "big" margin. However, this report was submitted around NOON Vegas time when not a single precinct is reporting any numbers yet! HOW CAN THEY ALREADY DECLARE A WINNER??This is what they said about how the Nevada Caucus outcome has been decided so early - "The results were from a poll conducted for AP and the television networks by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International as voters entered 20 caucus sites in Nevada. The survey involved interviews with 571 GOP voters, and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 6 percentage points."
So interviews with less than 600 people are representative of the entire states votes?? REALLY???
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jld3VILFDbEY6uciu_lp_YgBnGqwD8U94IR00
Other Christians would also include the Church of Christ and Christian Church folks.
prolefeed | January 19, 2008, 3:23pm | #
Which really isn't the same thing as picking one Republican out of a field of Republicans. At all.Agreed. But, people tend to vote for people who act or look like them. Not always, but enough to swing elections. So, let's imagine for a moment that you're a Nevadan LDS member in a small ranching or farming town where virtually everyone you know is LDS, and their families have been so for generations (I know, I know, Teh Scary, but stick with me for a bit). And, out of all the Republicans running for president, you have one who (currently) hits all the conservative talking points. And uses the words that mean a lot to LDS ("family" and "marriage" a lot, "proud" not at all). And that guy doesn't cuss. And has been married to the same woman for years. And holds current Temple Recommend. And all five of his sons are similarly squeaky-clean, and have been married in the Temple to LDS wives. And he's been a bishop in his ward.
What, exactly, are the chances you are going to vote for a Republican who has been photographed in drag (Giuliani)? Or who has made a point of publicly insulting your religious beliefs (Huckabee)? Or has been divorced multiple times (pretty much everyone else running)?
Be real. If you're in that situation, you're gonna vote for Romney, because you effing identify with him (though you'd never even use the euphemism "effing").
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 3:24pm | #
Mitt did so well among Mormons because his political views are just like most of their political viewsTo quote Huckabee (ick), which ones? He also did well among MI auto workers because his political views at that moment were just like theirs.
robc | January 19, 2008, 3:24pm | #
Eric,If the exit/entrance polling is right and Romney is getting 94-95% of the Mormon vote, I dont know how to describe that other than bigotry.
You cant get 95% of baptists or catholics or even scientologists to vote the same way. Thats bigger numbers than democrats pull from black voters.
Do you have any other analysis of that? I would gladly accept another rational answer.
Kolohe | January 19, 2008, 3:26pm | #
joe-76% African Americans for Obama.
Which is 20% higher than any other demographic split (race, age, gender, or religion) in either direction (Clinton or Obama).
Gene Trosper | January 19, 2008, 3:26pm | #
In the 1970's, Mormons were literally bussed into surrounding states to organize opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.robc | January 19, 2008, 3:27pm | #
SimpleCJ,Actually nearly 600 is a reasonable okay sample size. If you can get a TRUE random sample, that is more than enough to get you a damn good answer on most questions most of the time.
The total size of the population doesnt matter if you truly selecting random samples.
joe | January 19, 2008, 3:27pm | #
The Limbaugh right was talking about Massachusetts Democrats voting in the New Hampshire primary. I wonder if they'll say the same thing about Utah Mormons voting in Nevada.IIRC, the Water Carrier himself is a big (heh) Romney guy.
Adam Selene | January 19, 2008, 3:28pm | #
So interviews with less than 600 people are representative of the entire states votes?? REALLY???If I had a $100 dollars for every time I have heard someone say or write that, including variations based on numbers, etc. I wish I had another $100 every time I heard someone say that the outcome which agreed with the poll, and denied the outcome they believed in, proved their favorite conspiracy theory was true (i.e. "vast right wing conspiracy", fraudulent voting, One World, Bilderberg's).
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 3:29pm | #
So interviews with less than 600 people are representative of the entire states votes?? REALLY???As long as those people are selected randomly, yes. If it weren't the case that sampling a tiny random slice of a population is just as good as sampling the entire population, there wouldn't be a lot of demand for statisticians, would there be?
Do you think GE tests every single light bulb they produce to see how long before it burns out? Or Ford crashes every car they produce to gauge how safe they are?
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 3:32pm | #
Eric,The Nevada GOP changed their rules last week to say that people could vote even if they weren't on the rolls in the precinct they were voting in and had no proof of residency. Concern about voter fraud in such instances hardly makes one a conspiracy theorist or a bigot.
Kolohe | January 19, 2008, 3:32pm | #
Also, joe I am not entirely disagreeing with you in that Mormons look to be among the most - if not the most - monolithic voting block around today. But African Americans, for complex reasons, are in second place on this front, and far ahead of most other voting blocs.crimethink | January 19, 2008, 3:32pm | #
Statisticians of the world, UNITE!joe | January 19, 2008, 3:34pm | #
Simple CJ,Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the Massachusetts gubenatorial election with single-digits reporting when the town of Quincy, which typically goes Democratic by double-digits, split about 50/50 for Romney.
prolefeed,
I agree with all of that. I'm not sure what you are taking exception to with me. BTW, "scary" is about the last word that occurs to me when thinking about small-town Mormons. Nice people. I gave some hot chocolate to a couple of 19-year-old "elders" who came to my door last winter. Nice kids.
Kolohe,
This is what winning with 75% of the vote looks like:
1 1 1 : 2
This is what winning with 95% of the vote looks like:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 2
Not the same thing. At all.
And based on my vast experience with, um, those two kids, I think that Mormons are just too gosh-darn honest to commit voter fraud in any significant numbers.
Kolohe | January 19, 2008, 3:36pm | #
One of my biggest pet peeves lately, (which appears almost entirely on right wing sites) is questioning how sampling can represent an entire population. Various errors are off course possible, (and well researched and documented), but the idea is based on fundamental mathematical principles as true and unambiguous as 2 plus 2 equal 4.LevStrauss | January 19, 2008, 3:36pm | #
Adam Selen,I never said anything about Ron turning things around. I will be happy with him just staying in the race and telling everyone else to go to hell. A year from now this country will continue to get worse, we might as well tell them off as much as we can. I can't with a clear conscience vote for anybody else. Is it more moral to vote for the alleged racist who will make life for everyone including minorities better, or the closet racist, whose advisers are intellectual supremecists and racists, who will make life much worse. Reading Leo Strauss while maintaining ones morality causes one to do such.
joe, I was talking about the comments Fluffy has been making, and thought you were jumping on that bandwagon. Apologies. My bad.
| January 19, 2008, 3:38pm | #
people tend to vote for people who act or look like them. Not always, but enough to swing elections.They also vote for people whose supporters act or look like them, or like their preferred self-image, or are people they want to impress.
That often effectively pre-decides elections by determining how candidates are covered, because journalism is primarily about the projection of the journalist's self-image as such.
See: how Ron Paul is covered here, and how Obama is covered everywhere...but especially here.
Fluffy | January 19, 2008, 3:39pm | #
If 95% of a religious group votes for something, that is a cult.Up until now I would have argued that there was no real difference between a cult and a religion. I may have been wrong.
A cult is when you can get 95% of a religion's members to show up to vote for a candidate.
Jim Jones couldn't have gotten that kind of vote right before the Kool Aid was handed out.
joe | January 19, 2008, 3:39pm | #
During the Clinton impeachment, Paul Harvey reported that opinion on the impeachment was running about 3:1 against nationally, and explained that "they were only asking people in New York and California."Everyone HE knew wanted to impeach Clinton.
Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 3:40pm | #
How about just plain nondenominational?Non-denominational Christian is about as descriptive as Flavored Ice Cream. And about as meaningful.
Kolohe | January 19, 2008, 3:45pm | #
This is the vote among white people in Nev:C C C C C O O O E E
These are hispanics:
C C C C C C O O O E
These are blacks
C C O O O O O O O O
See the difference? (or rather, see similarities with Mormons?)
robc | January 19, 2008, 3:46pm | #
Jim Jones couldn't have gotten that kind of vote right before the Kool Aid was handed out.This is true. Didnt well over 5% have to be shot because they refused to drink?
prolefeed | January 19, 2008, 3:47pm | #
Also, joe I am not entirely disagreeing with you in that Mormons look to be among the most - if not the most - monolithic voting block around today. But African Americans, for complex reasons, are in second place on this front, and far ahead of most other voting blocs.kolohe -- maybe in Utah. Not so much in Hawaii. When I ran for the State Senate, I got about 70% of the vote in Laie (which is about 90% LDS). Bush got 85% there.
On election day, I thought I was in trouble in my strongest precinct (Laie), because the place was flooded with hardcore Democrats waving signs for my opponent and every other Democrat running -- until someone pointed out that this happens every election, where purt-near every Democrat in Laie is out on election day sign-waving, with nary a Republican in sight, and then their neighbors shake their hands, wish them a hearty good morning, and then continue walking to the polls to vote Republican all the way down the ballot.
WHY IS DR. RON PAUL PLACED IN A NEWS BLACKOUT? HE ALSO RAN IN NEVADA AND NOT A MENTION OF HIS NAME IN YOUR ARTICLES? HOW DID HE DO? YOU MENTION OTHER CANDIDATES WHO HAVE RECEIVED FEWER VOTES AND LESS MONETARY DONATIONS? MANY OF US SUPPORT RON PAUL AND WOULD LIKE THE NEWS MEDIA TO INCLUDE HIS CAMPAIGN IN THE NEWS COVERAGE. HOW ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION WHEN THEY ARE NOT GIVEN COMPLETE INFORMATION BY THE NEWS MEDIA ABOUT WHO IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE! SHAME ON YOU
Eric | January 19, 2008, 3:51pm | #
It is true that Mormons did oragnize and bus people to participate in the ERA question -- as was their right as citizens -- but they could only vote within their own states.And it also true that ERA supporters did a great deal to deter Mormon women from participating -- like showing lesbian porn movies for the purpsoe of offending the Mormon ladies out of the room -- and then calling the vote once they left.
Look, a tenet of the Mormon faith is this: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
It would be against a Mormon's religion to commit election fraud or to otherwise tamper with an election.
Look, you are frustrated with the outcome, but Mormons are not out to get you.... You will serve Ron Paul candidate BETTER if you desist from calling people names.
Mormons, for the most part, TEND to be conservative Republicans. They love people from all countries, but again, they believe in the rule of law, so tend to oppose ILLEGAL immigration. There are some different opinions on illegal immigration from the R candidates. Romney seems to respect the law.
I could go on. But there are sound POLITICAL reasons for Mormons to be supporting Romney outside of the cultural ones.
If the Mormon vote were as cult-like as some here claim, there would zero LDS Paul supporters.
prolefeed | January 19, 2008, 3:51pm | #
Fluffy - care to address the points in my 3:23 post about WHY Mitt got 95% of the LDS vote? Or just gonna keep banging the "cult" drum, in a cult-like obsessive way? ;)P.S. Do you think I'm a Kool-Aid drinker?
Kolohe | January 19, 2008, 3:51pm | #
ug my grammer is horrible today. It must be all the shouting.Maria | January 19, 2008, 3:53pm | #
Tired of hearing that Paul supporters are all racist white men. I'm not white man. Try to keep my racism under control, living in the city, sending my kids to the public schools where white teachers who live in the suburbs preach to my white kids about the glories of Rosa Parks. (Oh, irony. They spot deer on the way to school. We drive through inner city ghetto pandemonium. They'd throw MLK in jail for loitering in a minute)The real racism is the 'liberal' Clinton left. They have expanded the police state, hiring over half a million police, god knows how many 'correction' officers.
All the black men thrown in prison under Clinton I, for federally mandated drug sentencing regulations that are the height of racism. Under Clinton I, black men are getting sodomized in prison, serving their crack sentences, while white cocaine convicts are serving their sentences out at treatment centers in Palm Springs.
To add insult to racist injury, Clinton I enabled all these nice police and prison guards to get liberal arts degrees in criminal justice on my tax dime. The Police/prison/university state partnership.
Once these nice folk have the degrees I helped fund, they can all go earn $1200/day as 'private security contractors' in Iraq and get their pictures taken in front of the human pyramid at Abu Grhaib.
Ron Paul racist? Tell me about it. Paul wants to repeal the racist drug sentencing practices and let the black man out of prison. How racist is that?
Steve - San Francisco | January 19, 2008, 3:54pm | #
Ron Paul suffers because some voters still will not vote their minds; rather, they feel the need to try to vote the winner. Ron Paul can win. He has the best and most resonating message. And, we are not kooks. We happen to be smart, well-read, and articulate. If a history test were required with your voter registration, Ron Paul would win in a landslide.stealth voter | January 19, 2008, 3:56pm | #
>The church invisible "consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof." This is a pure society, the church in which Christ dwells. It is the body of Christ. it is called "invisible" because the greater part of those who constitute it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because its members still on earth cannot certainly be distinguished. The qualifications of membership in it are internal and are hidden. It is unseen except by Him who "searches the heart." "The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tnn. 2:19). The church to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises appertaining to Christ's kingdom belong, is a spiritual body consisting of all true believers, i.e., the church invisible.Grand Chalupa | January 19, 2008, 3:56pm | #
If 95% of a religious group votes for something, that is a cult.Up until now I would have argued that there was no real difference between a cult and a religion. I may have been wrong.
A cult is when you can get 95% of a religion's members to show up to vote for a candidate.
And when 90% of a race always votes the same way, you call them negros.
Sorry, I'm trying to quit.
Libertarian | January 19, 2008, 3:57pm | #
Go Ron Paul. We love youprolefeed | January 19, 2008, 3:58pm | #
Kolohe: No offense taken. If you're running for office and go around thinking you're Teh Precious, and everyone must love you because of your complete awesomeness, you're in for a HUGE reality check if you go door-to-door.My opponent was Hawaiian, in a hugely Polynesian town. Race does matter in how people vote, and it's not just the white folks.
J sub D | January 19, 2008, 3:58pm | #
ANNOYED -YOU LEFT OUT THE BOLD AND ITALICS TAGS!!! THERE WAS ALSO A DISTINCT LACK OF EXCAMATION POINTS!!! OTHER THAN THOSE MINOR QUIBBLES, GOOD RANT!!!
robc | January 19, 2008, 3:59pm | #
prolefeed,you have one who (currently) hits all the conservative talking points.
Even with the (currently) I dont think this applies to Romney.
Bingo | January 19, 2008, 4:00pm | #
This primary has been almost completely about identity politics, not ideas. It's disgusting.joe | January 19, 2008, 4:01pm | #
See the difference? (or rather, see similarities with Mormons?)No, I can't. Because you didn't put up the graphic for Mormons. Why don't you do that, so we can see if the African-American breakdown looks more like Mormons, or more like white and Hispanic voters?
Jacob | January 19, 2008, 4:03pm | #
Who is winning the coveted white supremacist vote? I can understand how they would break for Romney, since the Mormons didn't let in blacks until the 1970s. However, his dad's association with MLK could hurt him enough to give Paul the lead.Adam Selene | January 19, 2008, 4:04pm | #
J sub D:YOU LEFT OUT THE BOLD AND ITALICS TAGS!!! THERE WAS ALSO A DISTINCT LACK OF EXCAMATION POINTS!!! OTHER THAN THOSE MINOR QUIBBLES, GOOD RANT!!!I'M SPEWING COKE ALL OVER MY LAPTOP RIGHT NOW!!!!!
Damn, couldn't you provide some sort of warning first?
Jacob | January 19, 2008, 4:05pm | #
Maria,Only white people can be racist. Clinton was black, and therefore not a racist.
Bingo | January 19, 2008, 4:06pm | #
African-Americans do play identity politics, but they vote Dem because they think its in their interest. If you put a black republican up against a white dem, the dem is most likely still going to win. It's identity politics, yes, but the positions still matter. It's not even close to the same thing as what you're seeing here with Romney.Mormons are voting for Romney not because of his political positions but because he is a Mormon running for president.
If Romney was running as a Democrat you would see the same huge numbers in his favor.
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 4:06pm | #
It would be against a Mormon's religion to commit election fraud or to otherwise tamper with an election.Is there a religion that is NOT against lying and cheating? Yet, there are people of all religions doing it anyway.
tepid | January 19, 2008, 4:06pm | #
And when 90% of a race always votes the same way, you call them negros.Sorry, I'm trying to quit.
Keep trying.
prolefeed | January 19, 2008, 4:08pm | #
Also, joe I am not entirely disagreeing with you in that Mormons look to be among the most - if not the most - monolithic voting block around today. But African Americans, for complex reasons, are in second place on this front, and far ahead of most other voting blocs.Of course, individuals are who vote, not groups. I was recently working in our legislature, and my office manager was a huge Romney supporter. He was also black, at least in skin color. A really funny, nice guy. We had some interesting discussions about politics, me arguing the libertarian POV, him arguing a hard-right conservative POV, while his beloved Rush Limbaugh was spouting off in the background on a hard-right radio show my manager kept playing all day, every day. I would turn it WAY down when he was out of the office, but it was an unspoken rule that one does not turn off the telescreens entirely.
The Wine Commonsewer | January 19, 2008, 4:08pm | #
Sometimes the mainstream protestant churches, like Presbies & Lutherans are considered Catholic-Lite and are segregated from the Baptists and modern liberal churches like the Vineyard and Calvary Chapel.Maybe that's what they mean by other Christian. [shrugs]
J sub D | January 19, 2008, 4:10pm | #
Reality check. Obama is the first credible (read electable) "black" (read 50% African) candidate in our nation's somewhaat shameful history. That a lot of black people may prefer to vote for Obama, even though they agree with Edwards or Clinton more on the issues is completely understandable.I'll be honest here. If a credible Atheist candidate were making the kind of splash that Obama is making, I'd probably give him/her a pass on an issue or two. Look into your mind and honestly say there isn't a possible reason for you to behave similarly.
joe | January 19, 2008, 4:13pm | #
95% of a group picking one guy from among a field of candidates with similar positions, when that candidate is of the same religious, racial, or ethnic group they come from.vs.
90% of a group picking one candidate over another, when the two have very different political positions, regardless of what religious, ethnic, or racial group the candidates come from.
One of these is identity politics, and one of these is not. If you don't see how these are different, it's because you are trying not to.
Adam Selene | January 19, 2008, 4:15pm | #
Being a fairly libertarian person has not led me to give Paul a pass on an issue or two (immigration and abortion, for example). Although, in earlier times in my life I did give Reagan a pass on some issues because of others. Of course, I was also fairly sure Reagan could be elected and run a reasonably competent administration. I'm afraid Paul can't do either of those things. Probably the bigger issue for me.Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 4:15pm | #
African-Americans do play identity politics...It would appear you do as well.
He was also black, at least in skin color.
Is there any other kind?
What is it, Racialist Day around here?
I don't get the Other Christian category myself. As a former Roman Catholic there are only two flavors of Christianity, Catholics and Hellbound heretic protestants. I thought that was common knowledge.
Maria | January 19, 2008, 4:19pm | #
Jacob -Ha, ha, ha.
I have to admit there is something lovable in Bill Clinton.
Like 'your' old, flea bitten, stinking mongrel dog, who you kick away at the dinner table, then cry like hell the day he gets hit by a mail truck.
Or something like that.
Bingo | January 19, 2008, 4:20pm | #
I agree with what joe saidAdam Selene | January 19, 2008, 4:21pm | #
J sub D:As a former Roman Catholic there are only two flavors of Christianity, Catholics and Hellbound heretic protestants.All of us recovering Catholics know that.
robc | January 19, 2008, 4:22pm | #
J sub D,Look into your mind and honestly say there isn't a possible reason for you to behave similarly.
Bill Clinton.
Jimmy Carter.
There have been 2 southern baptist prezes in my lifetime. I cant think of any reason I would vote SBC over someone I more agreed with.
Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 4:23pm | #
As a former Roman Catholic there are only two flavors of Christianity, Catholics and Hellbound heretic protestants.J sub, you're showing your age.
Catholics haven't talked about the "hellbound" stuff since Vatican II, you silly man.
If anything, I was always told by the Bible-bangers that I was headed to Hell for my Papist, mackerel-snapping, Mary-worshiping ways.
robc | January 19, 2008, 4:25pm | #
Catholics haven't talked about the "hellbound" stuff since Vatican II, you silly man.Correct, now they quote Monty Python and call us "splitters".
Eric Dondero | January 19, 2008, 4:25pm | #
Report in Ron Paul's local hometown Newspaper The Facts this morning that he might go Independent, and also quotes him as saying that it "probably would not be Libertarian Party."Paul has been indicating for weeks now, if he didn't win the GOP primaries and caucuses, this would be a possibility.
His poor 3rd place showing today, by some results as low as 11%, may make this a reality.
J sub D | January 19, 2008, 4:26pm | #
...a credible Atheist candidate...LOL!!!
Indeed. We'll elect a Muslim, a Buddhist or two, Mormons and Jews, any flavor of Christian imaginable, but atheism is the touch of death. An atheist against a gay, necrophiliac, who is a charter memeber of NAMBLA, and a Lutheran, would clean an atheists clock in a state or national election.
I'm just grateful y'all haven't brought back the Spanish Inquisition.
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 4:27pm | #
He's in second place at the moment, asshat.robc | January 19, 2008, 4:28pm | #
crimethink,I was just about to post the same thing, but your is better written and you remembered to use asshat.
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 4:29pm | #
"asshat" refers to Dondero's post above.prolefeed | January 19, 2008, 4:29pm | #
If Romney was running as a Democrat you would see the same huge numbers in his favor.I'm gonna have to politely disagree about this. An LDS Democrat from Nevada, Harry Reid, is almost universally despised in my ward. If he ran for President, and Romney was off the ticket, he'd get very few LDS votes.
I was trying to google this, and while I couldn't find something specifically addressing his support or lack thereof by Mormons, this jumped out: "Reid knows the peril of failing to please the rurals. He won reelection to a third term in 1998 by just 428 votes, carrying only two of Nevada’s 17 counties — urban Clark County and the small union stronghold of Mineral County up north."
In other words, he failed to carry the rural counties, some of which are heavily LDS.
I did find this blog titled will the mormons please excommunicate harry reid already
so I'm guessing that the meme "Mormons are robots who will vote for anyone who is LDS" is not entirely true. Political views do matter to some. ;)
LarryA | January 19, 2008, 4:29pm | #
He's doing pretty well with Hispanics.Not a surprise. Lots of middle-class Hispanics are just as hard against newcomers as are other former immigrant groups like the Minutemen.
I'm not sure what to make of this, but while Romney carried the Protestant, Catholic, and (of course) Mormon vote, Paul got a plurality of "other Christian" ballots. Anyone care to speculate what sects those might be?
Not sure how the polltakers classified folks, but Episcopalians derived from the Anglican Church, which split from Catholicism before the Protestant Revolution. (Remember Henry VIII.) Methodists and the other denominations which originated in England and fled persecution by the Anglicans are not technically “Protestant” either. It would also include anyone in the Eastern Orthodox branch of Catholicism, which split off even earlier.
You also have lots of Christians who belong to non-denominational churches, as well as a number of “born in the Bible Belt” denominations that never had any historical connection to the Catholic Church.
A cult is when you can get 95% of a religion's members to show up to vote for a candidate.
The stats didn’t say 95% of Mormons voted, it said that of the Mormons voting 95% went for Mitt. Statistics 101.
I thought it was really interesting that only one in four “white evangelical/born again” voters went for Huckabee.
Gene Trosper | January 19, 2008, 4:29pm | #
I merely pointed out the fact that Mormons were bussed to surrounding states to demonstrate that they *have* organized to participate in the politics of other states. Some had earlier suggested that Mormons were bussed in from Utah to Nevada.robc | January 19, 2008, 4:31pm | #
crimethink,"asshat" refers to Dondero's post above.
Yeah, I know. I wasnt going to be as clear with my insult.
Adam Selene | January 19, 2008, 4:33pm | #
Knowing the state of Nevada fairly well, I think it is a mistake to draw conclusions from the statistical results in Nevada. As one of my friends noted in an email to me not long ago:Sure, he does well in a state full of gamblers, strippers, and hookers!Nevada is a cultural outlier, like Alaska.
Peter | January 19, 2008, 4:33pm | #
Jehovah's Witnesses is the only religious group that actually doesn't vote in politics.prolefeed | January 19, 2008, 4:34pm | #
He was also black, at least in skin color.Is there any other kind?
What is it, Racialist Day around here?
I was referring, tongue-in-cheek, to the whole "Is Obama black enough?" nonsense, where apparently one has to have certain statist cultural baggage to be authentically black.
My bad for not putting a ;) after that comment for the benefit of the irony-impaired or thin-skinned around here.
Adam Selene | January 19, 2008, 4:34pm | #
That he was referring to Ron Paul.prolefeed | January 19, 2008, 4:38pm | #
Some had earlier suggested that Mormons were bussed in from Utah to Nevada.If they were bussed in to VOTE, rather than just wave signs or whatnot, a bunch of people's Temple Recommends would get yanked for that.
Jonathan Goff | January 19, 2008, 4:40pm | #
Prolefeed,Be real. If you're in that situation, you're gonna vote for Romney, because you effing identify with him (though you'd never even use the euphemism "effing").
Yeah, I believe the correct euphemism would be "flippin"...
~Jon
Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 4:40pm | #
I have yet to meet a Mormon Democrat.They are a thoroughly conservative (in both fields) people.
So, Republican + Mormon = huge Mormon support for said candidate.
and you guys are surprised by this somehow?
FWIW, conflating Mormons voting en masse for a Mormon and black folk voting for a black candidate is silliness.
A person's religion implies a whole field of philosophical beliefs and concepts; a person's race implies nothing at all.
alisa | January 19, 2008, 4:42pm | #
12%, folks. 12%.I'm doing a little happy dance now.
On the identity politics business (Romney and Obama) I don't see that it's particularly alarming if a group with shared political interests votes as a bloc. A quick look at history -- and by history I mean as late as Harold Washington in the 80's -- can show that blacks haven't always been honestly represented by white politicians. And the fact that Mormons vote together, if anything, relates them to other religions, since practically every clergyperson tells congregants how to vote this time of year. Is that "identity politics"? Has there ever been a working democracy without factions?
grumpy realist | January 19, 2008, 4:44pm | #
Damn, I sorta wish that Ron Paul would place in the top two, just to see what the MSM and GOP would do. Hee.You think in that case questions about the letters (and Paul's sucking up to conspiracy groups) is gonna go away? You poor fools....
Look, guys--having a presidential candidate babble on about the gold standard and getting rid of the FED and the IRS doesn't make him sound intelligent. It just makes him sound nuts. (And accusing people who point out problems with Paul's positions of being part of the international-banker-conspiracy makes you sound really, really nuts.)
God, I wish we were back in the days when we only had to worry about the Bavarian Illuminati....
J sub D | January 19, 2008, 4:44pm | #
J sub D,I thought Buddhists were atheists.
Can't be. They're electable.
MLK | January 19, 2008, 4:44pm | #
odds are, many of paul's supporters(non nazi's, conspiracist, etc) are not aware of his racist and conspiratorial past and present. the media has been pretty uninterested to this point and the candidates have yet to campaign against him. If they did, he'd be ran out of the country in short order.If he runs as 3rd party, odds are the media will get into it, because he appeals to so many far-left anti-war types. Same people that beleive Criminals commit crimes because of "society is to blame" and apply same logical fallacy to Foreign Policy.
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 4:44pm | #
practically every clergyperson tells congregants how to vote this time of year.Come again?
They can't do that if they want to keep their tax-exempt status. I know I've never heard Catholic clergy tell someone to vote for a specific candidate.
Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 4:45pm | #
My bad for not putting a ;) after that comment for the benefit of the irony-impaired or thin-skinned around here.Oof...and the Objectivist gets a takedown for context-dropping.
Sorry, prolefeed! (damn Ayn Rand...left me all humor-impaired and shit.)
joe | January 19, 2008, 4:46pm | #
The stats didn’t say 95% of Mormons voted, it said that of the Mormons voting 95% went for Mitt. Statistics 101.True enough, but when considering the implications of this fact, remember that Mormons make up 7% of the electorate and 25% of today's Republican voters.
Andrew Jackson | January 19, 2008, 4:47pm | #
I did not read all of messages, so forgive if this had been stated already, but "other Christians" inclused many different groups: Eastern Orthodox Churches (Russian, Greek, Antiochian, and etc), Coptic Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and possibly Eastern Catholic Churches.Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 4:49pm | #
God, I wish we were back in the days when we only had to worry about the Bavarian Illuminati....Look here, Sonny Jim, Ron Paul told me that we have to worry about the Trilateral Commission AND the Bilderberg group! OMFG!
Same people that beleive Criminals commit crimes because of "society is to blame" and apply same logical fallacy to Foreign Policy.
Oh dear, what a binary view of the world you have.
So, is "Criminal" the genotype or the phenotype, you retard?
Looking more and more like a Dem president this time. Romney's all teeth and polyester but first chance he gets he'll shit in your hair.
alisa | January 19, 2008, 4:54pm | #
I guess it would be technically illegal to endorse a candidate, but there's a lot of leeway for hinting. Huckabee encourages pastors to "educate" their congregations about caucuses,(link)
and last night I got a pretty transparent plug for Obama.
Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 4:56pm | #
I don't think Romney's a lock, but I believe he'll be the next President, especially if the Democrats do something so bone-headed as to actually nominateIt's going to be a Governor vs. a Senator. Haven't we learned how this goes down almost every time?
It'll be 2004 all over again. oh, goody.
Andrew Jackson | January 19, 2008, 4:56pm | #
The causes of Islamic terrorism is more nuanced than just our foreign policy, although that certainly is a component of it. It also includes the humiliation the Muslim world has experienced in the last century. The fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Palestenian refugee problem, picking the losing side in WW2 and the Cold War, and the military defeats versus the Isrealis are just some of the causes for anger and extremism in the Muslim world.Evangelical churches - the black, Democratic ones and the white, Republican ones - do seem to be more comfortable walking up to that line than the Catholics or the mainline Protestants.
joe | January 19, 2008, 4:59pm | #
Randian,I'll see your Senator and raise you Massachusetts.
The head-to-heads put Hillary consistently ahead of Romney. And remember those "value voters" who turned out in such numbers in 2004? They no likey Mormons.
McCain is the only candidate that gives the Republicans a shot.
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 5:00pm | #
Then again, some bishops like to advertise that they feel a certain Catholic candidate should be denied Communion, which is itself pretty tacky.alisa | January 19, 2008, 5:03pm | #
Wait, which candidate is Catholic?some dude | January 19, 2008, 5:03pm | #
If "other Christians" was a choice, I would probably check that box. I don't particularly self-identify as "protestant."Andrew Jackson | January 19, 2008, 5:06pm | #
I am Greek Orthodox, so I would check the "other Christians" box. Uh-oh, CNN is reporting voting machine malfunctions; did anyone see this coming????Gene Trosper | January 19, 2008, 5:07pm | #
If they were bussed in to VOTE, rather than just wave signs or whatnot, a bunch of people's Temple Recommends would get yanked for that.Not necessarily. I lived in LDS-land (Salt Lake City)and the general attitude I got was "anything to protect the church and it's beliefs". To this day, there is STILL controversy over the Mountain Meadows Massacre, to give just one example.
The infamous "Salamander Letter" is another, where the church bought documents that shed a bad light on the church in order to suppress them. The documents were later proven to be forgeries.
And who could forget Jospeh Smith and the destruction of printing presses in Nauvoo, Illinois?
voiceofthepeople | January 19, 2008, 5:08pm | #
Yeah, nobody is voting for the guy who follows the US (not foreign) Constitution anymore so make sure you don’t either. STAY AT HOME Ron Paul supporters. He can’t win so vote for us. STAY AT HOME Ron Paul supporters. You swear to uphold what? Civil liberties? Free speech? The Us Constitution? What the hell is that? Screw the US Constitution. Screw the Economy. Screw the Republic. Don’t vote for the Duke Medical School finance nerd, Dr. Paul, the guy who has studied economics for 30 years and ran several of his own successful businesses while providing free or reduced cost healthcare to poor people of all races so they wouldn’t die prematurely. The guy with the A+ average who voted to hunt down Bin Laden and against the Iraqi War as a response to 911 hysteria will never win.I am voting for the Vietnam era USAF flight surgeon who showed a willingness to risk life and limb for his country when some fled to Canada, who never voted for an unbalanced budget and who incidentally has more support among our military and brave veterans than any other candidate (Republican or Democrat). How did they know about him way before the rest of America? Should we be investigating this…?
Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:09pm | #
The head-to-heads put Hillary consistently ahead of Romney.well, and six months ago Giuliani was the leader in the primary polls.
I don't get what Massachusettes has to do with it, though.
Rudy | January 19, 2008, 5:09pm | #
Wait, which candidate is Catholic?That fringe guy, not Duncan Hunter, some dago ex-mayor whose main issue is 9/11/2001.
mlk | January 19, 2008, 5:10pm | #
its hilarous how "libertarians" excuse Islamic Jihad the exact same way the Far-Left excuse the acts of Criminals as being caused by society.and with Jihad there is 1300 years of history and the koran to back up their World Sharia Domination imperative.
joe | January 19, 2008, 5:13pm | #
Ayn Randian,Candidates from Massachusetts don't win presidential elections, either. Even governors. The last Senator to win election was also the last candidate from Massachusetts.
Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:14pm | #
To this day, there is STILL controversy over the Mountain Meadows Massacre, to give just one example.Oh Jesus, tell me about it. Just go see the Wikipedia talk page about it...they're still debating whether the term massacre is appropriate. People got their hang-ups, I guess.
voiceofthepeople provides a concrete referent to the abstract concept of "Paulbot". Thanks, I thought it was a floater.
I hope the World Sharia Domination Imperative becomes the new Zionist Occupation Government.
John C. Randolph | January 19, 2008, 5:15pm | #
"I'm not sure what heading Messianic Jews would come under, either."I think the term you're looking for is "Goyim".
-jcr
P.O.[E.]T.U.S. | January 19, 2008, 5:17pm | #
I've yet to meet a Mormon Democrat,A Witness voting is defection;
Which leaves re-Pharisees, re-Publicans
Awaiting Calvinists' election.
Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:17pm | #
its hilarous how "libertarians" excuse Islamic Jihad the exact same way the Far-Left excuse the acts of Criminals as being caused by society.I can tell you have no idea what the difference is between a "justification" and a "motive".
Candidates from Massachusetts don't win presidential elections, either.
Wellll, OK. Is it fair if I fudge the Point of Origin for the Bushes a little?
Or would that be too dishonest of me :-D?
alisa | January 19, 2008, 5:18pm | #
Thanks, jcr.John C. Randolph | January 19, 2008, 5:19pm | #
"Is there a religion that is NOT against lying and cheating?"Sadly, there is. Google for "scientology".
-jcr
Meshumed | January 19, 2008, 5:21pm | #
jcr, you think erroneously.crimethink | January 19, 2008, 5:21pm | #
The last Senator to win election was also the last candidate from Massachusetts.Wasn't George H W Bush from MA?
crimethink | January 19, 2008, 5:23pm | #
If they were bussed in to VOTE, rather than just wave signs or whatnot, a bunch of people's Temple Recommends would get yanked for that.Only if they get caught -- and I suspect that would be the least of their troubles in that case.
Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 5:24pm | #
Nah, he's from Connecticut, which is a whole Rhode Island apart from Massachusetts. That's a great chasm, if you know what I mean.Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:25pm | #
crimethink -That's kind of what I was going for with the reference to the Bushes, but HW Bush was VP, so all bets are off in his origin, because he was from "The White House" rather than from Massachusetts.
joe's saying that candidates from Massachusetts don't win the Presidency, but I think there are more data points on my side (Governors v. Senators) than there are with his (Massachusetts-based candidates v. others).
J sub D | January 19, 2008, 5:25pm | #
I don't think Romney's a lock, but I believe he'll be the next President, especially if the Democrats do something so bone-headed as to actually nominateThe Democratic party has the mind boggling ability to throw away a presidential election that is somewhat reminicent of the '70s Minnesota Vikings. Unless it's that ignorant, hillbilly, whackjob preacher, I'll probably vote Republican if she's the Dems nominee.
Cesar | January 19, 2008, 5:27pm | #
The Democratic party has the mind boggling ability to throw away a presidential election that is somewhat reminicent of the '70s Minnesota Vikings.They do that often. And yeah, I'll go on record and say I'll vote for any Republican (Exceptions: Huckabee, Giuliani) before Clinton.
I'll have to have a decontamination shower afterwards, but I'll do it.
Tom Blanton | January 19, 2008, 5:28pm | #
Mormons didn't vote for Mitt because he is Mormon. They voted for him because he has great teeth and a damned good wig. He bought the rest of the votes.joe | January 19, 2008, 5:29pm | #
No, Bush was elected from Texas and always presented himself as being from Texas.Yeah yeah, I know it's bull, but in terms of how he was perceived and the record and biography he ran on, he was an ahl man from God's Country.
economist | January 19, 2008, 5:31pm | #
As a nonpracticing Catholic, I would like to propose that we drop the religion topic and all get drunk.J sub D | January 19, 2008, 5:32pm | #
Then again, some bishops like to advertise that they feel a certain Catholic candidate should be denied Communion, which is itself pretty tacky.True Story, After my mother was divorced and remarried, she was denied Communion by the parish priest. I was then no longer required to attend catechism classes and only encouraged to attend Mass after that. The Catholic church refusing communion to somebody doesn't hurt them in the eyes of this apostate.
Not one little bit.
In other words, Dave, Hillary Clinton has turned Barack Obama from Jack Kennedy to Jessie Jackson?