Also, check out the graphs of how the candidates are doing generally (just below poll results)...

 

In Iowa, note that Romney and Huckabee have been going up, Giuliani and McCain down, and Thompson stagnant.

 

In NH, its pretty much the same trend.

 

I guess the money-bombs are the "in" thing now... Fred Thompson is planning one on Nov 21

 

http://www.blogsforfredthompson.com/nation...ovember-21-2007

 

Count in Romney and Huckabee as well.

 

Also, Paul is up to 6% in the latest Rasmussen national poll:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll

ugh, I really don't want to see Romney win the nomination.

ugh, I really don't want to see Romney win the nomination.

 

I don't think Romney can win the election. The bible belt of the south, which has been a Republican stronghold, won't for a LDS candidate. Without the south, he can't win.

I don't think Romney can win the election. The bible belt of the south, which has been a Republican stronghold, won't for a LDS candidate. Without the south, he can't win.

 

Yep. One of my favorite kids, an Eagle Scout from my Troop and a summer camp staffer just left on his two year LDS Mission. He's going to be in the New York / Connecticut area. I just realized all those kids knocking on doors are almost like campaign workers.

 

My only thought to the contrary is we elected a Catholic 45 years ago, so maybe a member of the LDS Church really isn't an insurmountable hurdle. But I'm guessing YASNY is spot on.

Yep. One of my favorite kids, an Eagle Scout from my Troop and a summer camp staffer just left on his two year LDS Mission. He's going to be in the New York / Connecticut area. I just realized all those kids knocking on doors are almost like campaign workers.

 

My only thought to the contrary is we elected a Catholic 45 years ago, so maybe a member of the LDS Church really isn't an insurmountable hurdle. But I'm guessing YASNY is spot on.

Big, big, big difference in national perception of Catholics versus Mormons. Most poeple see Catholics as a branch of Christianity, though they may disagree with some of their stands. The majority of people view Mormons as a cult. Right or wrong, that's the perception. The two are just not comparable, when looking at it from the view of the nation.

 

I don't think Romney can win the election. The bible belt of the south, which has been a Republican stronghold, won't for a LDS candidate. Without the south, he can't win.

And, I find it just as unlikely that the GOP can win with a pro-choice, socially liberal and multi-marriage New Yorker like Giuliani. So who can they put up in a national election with a real shot?

 

To me, McCain is the only GOP candidate with a real chance of winning a national election.

 

Doesn't matter how good your candidate is, only how bad the other candidate is.

And, I find it just as unlikely that the GOP can win with a pro-choice, socially liberal and multi-marriage New Yorker like Giuliani. So who can they put up in a national election with a real shot?

 

You are underestimating the absolute fear that the ultra-conservatives have for Hillary Clinton. They think she is the anti-christ or something. If Giuliani wins the primary, you will see more endorsements like Pat Robertson. The GOP's main problem is national debt, Iraq or the economy.

You are underestimating the absolute fear that the ultra-conservatives have for Hillary Clinton. They think she is the anti-christ or something. If Giuliani wins the primary, you will see more endorsements like Pat Robertson. The GOP's main problem is national debt, Iraq or the economy.

I think you are assuming that the GOP today is the GOP from the 80's and 90's. I would agree the economy, debt and Iraq are huge, far bigger than social issues. But I think there is still a significant chunk of the GOP's voters that are of the opinion that getting a "real conservative" in office (in their minds, meaning a Christian Coalition model of conservative) is paramount. That's the party schism I've been referring to for a while. I think you are right about the endorsements of whomever wins the nomination, but I think that socially conservative bunch is not yet ready to crown Giuliani as the nominee.

 

ETA: And Iraq is a nexus issue at the junction of religious conservatism, foreign affairs and economics.

 

I think you are assuming that the GOP today is the GOP from the 80's and 90's. I would agree the economy, debt and Iraq are huge, far bigger than social issues. But I think there is still a significant chunk of the GOP's voters that are of the opinion that getting a "real conservative" in office (in their minds, meaning a Christian Coalition model of conservative) is paramount. That's the party schism I've been referring to for a while. I think you are right about the endorsements of whomever wins the nomination, but I think that socially conservative bunch is not yet ready to crown Giuliani as the nominee.

 

ETA: And Iraq is a nexus issue at the junction of religious conservatism, foreign affairs and economics.

 

Obviously this is a "we'll see what happens" type thing.

 

I know CNN was really pushing the "party schism thing" for a while, but they don't know what they're talking about. That would be the equivalent to going to Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity to get the inside scoop on the Dems. A supreme court nominee is a big issue with the religious right people, and Giuliani will give them more of what they want than Clinton. And they see Giuliani as the guy who can win. Oh, and you're right about Romney, they won't vote for him because he is Mormon. They see that religion as a cult.

Obviously this is a "we'll see what happens" type thing.

 

I know CNN was really pushing the "party schism thing" for a while, but they don't know what they're talking about. That would be the equivalent to going to Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity to get the inside scoop on the Dems. A supreme court nominee is a big issue with the religious right people, and Giuliani will give them more of what they want than Clinton. And they see Giuliani as the guy who can win. Oh, and you're right about Romney, they won't vote for him because he is Mormon. They see that religion as a cult.

Just so you know, I'm not basing my knowledge on CNN's opinions. I think the party's division is clear from the decisions, votes and candidates. That isn't to say the Dems are some model of unity either - they are actually much more fragmented than the GOP. But its less of a 2-group thing there, and more of a lot of gray.

 

 

Just so you know, I'm not basing my knowledge on CNN's opinions. I think the party's division is clear from the decisions, votes and candidates. That isn't to say the Dems are some model of unity either - they are actually much more fragmented than the GOP. But its less of a 2-group thing there, and more of a lot of gray.

 

you also have the Ron Paul supporting, more libertarian type GOP voter.

you also have the Ron Paul supporting, more libertarian type GOP voter.

Sure. That's a small but growing group. I think a lot of the fiscal conservatives, disillusioned with the party going a little too far with the crusading bent, are attracted to the idea of a Ron Paul type candidate. If he decides to run in the national as an independent, he could really screw the GOP's chances.

 

Big, big, big difference in national perception of Catholics versus Mormons. Most poeple see Catholics as a branch of Christianity, though they may disagree with some of their stands. The majority of people view Mormons as a cult. Right or wrong, that's the perception. The two are just not comparable, when looking at it from the view of the nation.

 

I tend to agree, but am wondering if Catholic + 45 years = Mormom??

Sure. That's a small but growing group. I think a lot of the fiscal conservatives, disillusioned with the party going a little too far with the crusading bent, are attracted to the idea of a Ron Paul type candidate. If he decides to run in the national as an independent, he could really screw the GOP's chances.

 

 

He said if he loses in the primary he won't run as an independent. He had said he would go back to congress if he doesn't get the nomination. He also stated he will not endorse the GOP nominee if he doesn't agree with their policies.

Catholic + 45 years = Mormom??

You lost me. You mean Romney's Mormonism today is seen in the same light as Kennedy's Catholocism in 1960? I don't think so. Even in the 60's, I doubt much of the population saw Catholics as a cult. If they did, Kennedy wouldn't have gotten the votes he did.

 

He said if he loses in the primary he won't run as an independent. He had said he would go back to congress if he doesn't get the nomination. He also stated he will not endorse the GOP nominee if he doesn't agree with their policies.

Oh he did? I didn't know that. Well, then he's just a novelty, I guess. Unless he puts together an impressive run. He'd need to be Top 3 in Iowa at least, to stay alive for a shot.

 

You lost me. You mean Romney's Mormonism today is seen in the same light as Kennedy's Catholocism in 1960? I don't think so. Even in the 60's, I doubt much of the population saw Catholics as a cult. If they did, Kennedy wouldn't have gotten the votes he did.

 

I wouldn't say that Ctholicism was considered a cult, but at time there was a lot of concern that the Vatican would be controlling the White House.

You lost me. You mean Romney's Mormonism today is seen in the same light as Kennedy's Catholocism in 1960? I don't think so. Even in the 60's, I doubt much of the population saw Catholics as a cult. If they did, Kennedy wouldn't have gotten the votes he did.

 

It was a big campaign issue. We like our Presidents old, white, and Protestant. With Kennedy, the Pope was going to open a branch office in the West Wing. Many people, and not just the "wackos" believed that Kennedy would have a higher power, the Pope, than his responsibilities as President. That is push came to shove, he would take the interests of his Church over the interests of the Country. Remember, no Catholic had been elected President at that point.

 

Here is the speech that many believe turned the tide and allowed him to get past this issue. This issue was strongest in the south and Kennedy meeting these Ministers on their turf was huge. http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/greater-ho...ial-association

 

So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

The man could speak.

 

Some of this is probably frame of reference, but Catholicism is not viewed on equal footing by mainstream Christianity. Remember the Protestant religions are protesting something, and that something is Catholicism. There are theological differences, and the most fanatical will tell you that Catholics are going to hell for their beliefs.

 

So graphically it's something like this

 

Protestants ---------------> Catholics -----> Mormons

 

Sometimes I'm not certain where to fit in Jews and sadly, why even bother with thinking about any other religious or non religious beliefs?

 

One final note, let's remember that he barely won. He probably has much in common with Bush '00. Thank Chicago and the Dem Machine. IIRC he barely won Illinois, by around 5,000 votes but won Chicago by close to 500,000.

It was a big campaign issue. We like our Presidents old, white, and Protestant. With Kennedy, the Pope was going to open a branch office in the West Wing. Many people, and not just the "wackos" believed that Kennedy would have a higher power, the Pope, than his responsibilities as President. That is push came to shove, he would take the interests of his Church over the interests of the Country. Remember, no Catholic had been elected President at that point.

 

Here is the speech that many believe turned the tide and allowed him to get past this issue. This issue was strongest in the south and Kennedy meeting these Ministers on their turf was huge. http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/greater-ho...ial-association

 

The man could speak.

 

Some of this is probably frame of reference, but Catholicism is not viewed on equal footing by mainstream Christianity. Remember the Protestant religions are protesting something, and that something is Catholicism. There are theological differences, and the most fanatical will tell you that Catholics are going to hell for their beliefs.

 

So graphically it's something like this

 

Protestants ---------------> Catholics -----> Mormons

 

Sometimes I'm not certain where to fit in Jews and sadly, why even bother with thinking about any other religious or non religious beliefs?

 

One final note, let's remember that he barely won. He probably has much in common with Bush '00. Thank Chicago and the Dem Machine. IIRC he barely won Illinois, by around 5,000 votes but won Chicago by close to 500,000.

I understand a parallel of sorts, but I think its on a very different scale.

 

I understand a parallel of sorts, but I think its on a very different scale.

 

Could be either way. I think selling Catholicism overall would be easier than LDS. I also think we accept the differences easier today than in 1959.

Could be either way. I think selling Catholicism overall would be easier than LDS. I also think we accept the differences easier today than in 1959.

I just don't see the comparison as being nearly on the same scale.

 

I just don't see the comparison as being nearly on the same scale.

 

Easier being the first Catholic in 1960 or easier being the first Mormon in 2008?

Easier being the first Catholic in 1960 or easier being the first Mormon in 2008?

Seriously? Far, far, far easier being the first Catholic in 1960. Catholics had been in major elected and appointed posts since the 18th century in this country, they are looked at as a strong, if over-bearing, branch of Christianty. Mormonism is seen by most as a cult, and you'll have a hard time finding a Christian who sees the LDS as even remotely related to being a Christian faith.