I do not think that Mitt Romney being Mormon had much to do with his losing the
election. I think that it had to do a lot more with people wanting more
government and more programs. While it is an obvious fact that the media likes
to bash on Mormons at times, most educated people do not really put much into
such stories. President Obama won the election because too many people wanted to
maintain the status quo and not relinquish their lifestyle of getting free stiff
from the government.
Vald, probably true. But I do wonder how many did not vote for him because of
his religion and would that had put him on top.
I am certain Mitt's loss cannot be attributed to being a member of the
Church.It turns off the working American to hear of car elevators!
His multiple mansions are beyond our comprehension. His 47% comment just buried
his candidacy a little deeper. He lost because he is "out of
touch" with those of us in the middle and working class of society. I
didn't vote for him, even though I am very conservative. I try to be
compassionate, too. And I didn't see that quality in Mitt's vision of
America or in his words.Massive amounts of money, close
relationships with high-powered executives, a clean-cut fatherly figure and a
perfect family photo could not overcome the distance he put between himself and
us. Religion played no factor, because he did not speak religious
I think it played factor, but he won most of the Bible Belt, which would
traditionally be the people who are not supportive of Mormons. I think he
missed some key moments, had plenty of gaffs and question marks, and the media
simply wouldn't let anything negative stick to Obama. Had any other
president done what Obama had done (Benghazi comes to mind) they would have been
politically killed for it. However, I still think those voting blue were
worried about Bush again, not realizing Obama has far surpassed Bush in
Did Romney's religion cost him the Presidency?Maybe.He was up in just about every poll right before the election and the exit
polls showed that there were a lot of white evangelicals that stayed home the
night of the election.Had the libera, America-hating mainstream
media reported truthfully on Romney he could have overcome any religious bias
but since the media largely (purposely) misrepresented Romney at every turn, it
is VERY possible that media's portrayal of Romney's religion cost him
He made a closer race of it against Obama than McCain did four years earlier. If
Santorum or Gingrich had been the nominee, Obama likely would have won by a
lopsided margin. I think religion was far down the list of reasons Mitt
couldn't pull out the win.
It didn't help.
Romney's religion wasn't much of a factor at all. People got through
the smoke and mirrors Romney tried to throw up to obscure what he really is, and
they (thankfully) found him severely lacking. He wasn't able to
etch-a-sketch away the truth about himself. As bad as Obama is, Romney would
have been infinitely worse. People found out the truth about Romney, and sent
him packing. Thank God.
He never once told anyone it was none of their business. So he had to be willing
to win by it...or lose.
More takers than makers voted
It had little to do with religion. Romney ran too far to the left. For
example, instead of stating "Why didn't Obama call me?" when
talking about ObamaCare/RomneyCare, he should have said "It was something I
had to do as governor of Massachusetts, to deal with local issues and a liberal
legislature, and it will be terrible on the national level." He should have
championed the Fair Tax. He ran not to lose, instead of running to win. He ran
as if he was simply happy to be nominated (see Dole, McCain). I ran afraid of
the "out of touch" comments by people like LDS, when he's far more
in touch (met a payroll) than Obama (never met a payroll).
Dear LDS,Money had nothing to do with it. If money was the issue,
Obama would not have won. Only morons think that the Obaminations are not in
the 1%. I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination, and I voted for him.
Regardless of how much money he has. The Uninformed Voter Block voted him in,
because he offered free government programs to all. The problem is, the
government is out of money, and eventually, after we lose 2 more stars on the
credit rating, the government will have no money to give the 50% of Americans
leeching off of the system, and then mass hunger, and rioting will occur. Is
there a need for government help, absolutely. Does 50% of the country need to
be on it? NO.
Romney's religion did not directly cause his loss.However, the
way the Democrats, and their allies in the media repeatedly mischaracterized the
LDS faith, and repeatedly lied about Romney's wealth, neglecting to mention
his charitable acts certainly cost him a lot of votes.Thus, the
MEDIA cost Romney the election, because of the way they misled the "low
information voters" about Romney and the LDS faith.
Could it be Romney lost because he is not presidential material.
@sergioIf Romney's not presidential material then Obama's not
even mayorial material.I voted for Romney and I wish he had won, but
that was eight months ago. I've moved on. At this point we should be
worried about what's happening now.
Romney's religion helped him far more than it hurt him. In 2008 his
biggest fundraising was in the Mormon corridor and his strong showing in
'08 led to his being the front-runner in 2012. The amount of
people who voted against Romney/stayed home because of his religion probably
came out in the wash with respect to those who did the same because of President
Obama's race. And since Romney won all of the safe GOP electoral votes
(the Bible Belt) its clear that religion didn't affect him in a material
way. The unfortunate reality is that in a country that no longer
cares about your race or religion, your ideological purity or lack thereof
evokes the most prejudice. The huge swath of states that voted for both
Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan are no longer persuadable states at all.
In most of this country, being either a Democrat or Republican will kill you no
matter what your resume' or values. That's unfortunate. I would like
to see Vermont vote GOP and Texas vote Democratic again in my lifetime.
@ Luke NelsonThe American voters don't agree with you. The beauty of
American democracy is that the citizens elect their choice and all good
Americans respect the elected president of the nation and cooperate in the
effort to serve America.
He was simply a terrible candidate.
Some percentage of voters thought Obama was atheist or Muslim, neither of which
are looked upon well by large swaths of the public. If anything both candidates
had a disadvantage based on faith. In the end though I think most voters cared
about who they thought would do a better job/better understood their concerns.
@A Guy With a Brain"He was up in just about every poll
right before the election"The Real Clear Politics average of
polls had Obama up by a couple. Nate Silver's model got 49 or 50 of the
states correct (I forget if the model got Florida or he got Florida). Romney was
trailing in almost every poll. @technonerd7"The Uninformed
Voter Block voted him in, because he offered free government programs to
all."As opposed to the guy promising tax cuts and protecting
entitlements while balancing the budget without somehow making us really
sacrifice anything...@Democrat"I would like to see Vermont
vote GOP"For what it's worth, Vermont had a Republican
governor around half a dozen years ago.
@ skeptic. I hope you're kidding.
I live in Washington state and Romney's religion was a factor here.The data shows that if Republicans had turned out in the same numbers in 2012
as they did in 2010 Romney would be President now.I know many who
are pleased to call themselves Christians and conservative but refused to vote
for Romney because he "was not Christian" in their eyes.
Romney lost because America is changing and the Republicans have not figured out
how to cope. There will be an LDS POTUS one day. But SHE will be a
I think it cost him. There are enough evangelicals in key states such as
Florida, Ohio, Iowa, etc that a percentage of them deciding to sit the election
out could swing the results the other way.
Too many people were dependent on government handouts and not wanting to lose
all their 'freebies", voter fraud, divided Republican party, biased
media for BHO...and many other things accounted for Romney to lose the election.
I don't think religion played that big a factor. Romney was an excellent
candidate and would have made an excellent President. He was and is very well
qualified for the job.Look at the mess we have been in ever since
with all the corruption, scandals, cover-ups, lies,and the racial tension we
presently face. Could we have done better? Yes!
@O'really,America is no joke. It is one of the wolds all time
greatest nations and it is the good citizens who serve the nation that maker her
what she is.
Heavens no!Mitt Romney's mouth cost him the election.
Indirectly. A true Christian would never allow the obscenely corrupt federal
government to do what it's doing, i.e. take money, by force, from one class
of individuals struggling to pay their bills and give it to the special interest
class, namely AIG, Solyndra, GM, PBS, and hundreds more in line with their hands
out. In that sense, yes, Mitt Romney's faith, or basic knowledge of right
and wrong, cost him the election, as he vowed to cut off this horrible, unjust
redistribution of wealth from poor to rich.
His religion didn't help on some fronts but it wasn't the reason he
lost. First, it is hard to to unseat a President running for reelection. The
electoral map now favors the Democrats drastically. Republican strongholds of
the past such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, and Virginia have gone
Blue in the past TWO elections. Bottom line, the Republicans have little room
for error and Romney made some errors. But he also in some ways ran a strong
campaign, much stronger in some sense than McCain in 2008. But if evangelicals
sat on the fence because he was Mormon, well that's their problem. But
America is a much diverse place and this diversity isn't favoring the
Republicans which is still a party strong with White Males but no other ethnic
group at this particular point.
Is this another shot at the old persecution complex? The one that allows too
many to be able to wallow in disappointment while weeping "They hate us
'cause we're Mormons! WAAHHH!"Anyway, Mitt WAS elected
as president - of the once (and future?) Confederate States of America. Can I
get a rebel yell, y'all?
"Is the fact that Mitt Romney is an active, practicing Mormon the reason he
lost the 2012 presidential election to Barack Obama?"NO.
Remember that the presidential candidate Romney before Mitt also was an active,
practicing Mormon -- a stake president -- and won huge chunks of Democratic
votes in Michigan. Harry Reid is "an active, practicing Mormon" and the
voters didn't have the same adversion to him. We have many active,
practicing Mormons here in Socal, especially in Los Angeles, who support Pres.
Obama.Mitt Romney lost the election in spite of being a Mormon
because he left openings that Pres. Obama's campaign exploited well and
because, in the end, Pres. Obama's local polls in critical neighborhoods
were more accurate, letting him close better than Bro. Romney.
Lackluster turnout among the Republicans in the 2012 elections might be
indicative of an "anti-Mormon" sentiment of some people. I have
non-Mormon family members who are deeply conservative, but refused to vote for
Romney because of his religion and simply remained home on election day, so
there is some anecdotal evidence of this playing a factor. Lackluster
conservative turnout won't impact Romney's winning of Bible Belt
states, but in more contentious races in the Midwest, it could make a world of
difference and most likely did. I do agree with the comments though
that Romney's "out-of touch" persona was very damaging. In
today's world of conservative politics, it seems that burning bridges with
the voters you need to get elected is all the rage. Politicians used to run to
the center, but now they are running to their fringe base voters and that rarely
works out. I blame Tea Party politics for some of the blame of Romney's
loss. Personally, I don't think he is as conservative as he came off, but
pretending to be something else made him seem phony and plastic--like he
wasn't comfortable in his own skin.
The media spun misinformation about Romney in the exact same way they spun
misinformation about George Zimmerman.
If I can count correctly, the 2012 presidential election was 8 months ago. Life
has gone on and moved ahead. Why are we seeing yet another article about why
Romney lost the election? I can tell you why he lost--he got fewer votes than
the winner. Whether his religion had something to do with that is
anybody's guess. It probably varies from state to state. Still and all,
Romney lost. Obama won. That's what we've got for the next 3 1/2
years. No amount of hand wringing, analyzing, or rehashing of the campaign is
going to change that. The DN needs to find something new to report on. This is
getting really old.
LDS voters can talk all day about how its church helps Mitt Romney, but the
simple fact they is that there are only a few million of them here in the USA.
That does not count registered Democrats, Independents, Tea Party
members, and others who would not vote for him on that basis. That
fails to acknowledge other LDS members who simply disagree with Romney's
stances on a variety of issues--such as his economics, enhanced interrogation
techniques, Romneycare, immigration, gay marriage, and abortion, among other
issues. I add that anyone who voted for Romney merely because he was
LDS needs to stop and evaluate that reasoning. LDS Republicans
really should wake up to the fact that there are only about one million (perhaps
a generous estimate) LDS faithful, most concentrated in places like Utah, Idaho,
Arizona, and California, who would vote for him. While I
acknowledge that one million votes can be the difference in an election, the
results were not even close. I am sure Romney is a good and
honorable man, but Romney ultimately failed because he would not allow people to
see how good he was. The reason Romney lost was the reason Obama
Romney won the states where his religion is a major factor. His religion
ultimately was not relevant. The martyr syndrome never ends. But
please, stop the obsession with Romney in this paper. Enough already!
All such barriers will fall, in time.
As a completely non-religious person and a Yankee to boot, I don't believe
Romney being LDS had much at all with his loss. The only people wrapped around
the axle about Romney being a Mormon were the white evangelicals in the South
and they certainly were not going to vote for Obama. They either stayed home or
voted for Romney.Romney's problems were many-fold. The GOP
itself jumped the rails some time back and the fiasco that was the GOP primaries
turned off many of the voters. Romney had to swing so far to the right to get
the nomination that it was difficult for him to get back to the center for the
general election. The GOP's message was incoherent, extremely right-wing
in a centrist country, and turned off large segments of society. It was all a
text-book case of how not to run a campaign. And, little has changed. I see no
effort by the GOP to turn around their losses. First thing to do if you are in
a hole? Stop digging. They don't "get it" and they are not going
to "get it," apparently.
But according to his own wife, since he was no longer a bishop or stake
president he was considered "a nobody" in the eyes of the members of his
own church. Who wants to vote for a nobody?
As unfamiliar as Mormonism is to many, he is a Christian, and that likely had
less to do with his losing than his cheating at the first debate when he was
caught on camera puling notes (NOT allowed) from his pocket, then hiding them in
his sleeve after.Nobody likes a cheat.
Dude in $5000 Brioni suits, the phoniest smile on Earth, getting $200 haircuts
can't connect with real people.
Yes, it's true.
Obama is a likable person. I think that many of those that voted for him in
2012 were still hoping for him to make the changes that he had promised in the
2008 campaign, thinking "Maybe if we just give him four more years".
Well his actions in his first term proved that he was not true to his word. I
could not vote for him a second time.The polls at the time showed
that the majority of people were against Obamacare yet they voted against the
person that had he been elected could have changed that policy. Well, look what
selecting a President based on how much he is liked has gotten us.We
now have a predominantly ignorant voter base in this country and the only way to
win an election is to be liked by them.
Sergio, Obama has spent the past five years demonstrating that he is
not up to the job and yet here he is, president. So there has to be another
explanation. When you look at a man who has dined at the public trough his whole
life and never really accomplished much other than the ability to give speeches,
you have to wonder how a man like Romney could have possibly lost to him. A lot
of people are scratching their heads trying to come up with an explanation. The
most likely is Vladhagen's. People just want stuff from the government.
Romney lost because he was Romney (unlikeable, out of touch, untruthful,
etc.).@Arizona Reader;I believe it was over 60 people
(SIXTY) who DIED in Embassy attacks during George W. Bush's reign of error.
Why didn't the Republicans conduce EVEN ONE investigation? Because
they've decided to obstruct each and every objective that the current
administration attempts; even if it will benefit the country.It's amazing to me how many of you keep bringing up the "takers",
"free loaders", etc. Why don't you take a good long look in the
mirror and see how much you benefit from the government's largesse.
skeptic - "The beauty of American democracy is that the citizens elect their
choice and all good Americans respect the elected president of the nation and
cooperate in the effort to serve America."I respect the office
of the president of the United States; however, the elected president, whether
Republican, Democrat, or something else, earns my respect through their actions.
As has been mentioned above, he lost because he came across as a cold, greedy,
hard-hearted man who cares nothing for the poor, and only wants to further
enrich himself and his very wealthy cronies. That, coupled with his incompetence
on the world stage (remember his disastrous trips to England and Israel), cost
him the election. I'm an active, dedicated member of the Church, a U.S.
citizen living in Canada, and I voted for Mr. Obama, and am very glad he won.
He's not a great president, but the country and the world dodged a major
bullet when Mr. Romney lost.
Mitt lost because he is Mitt, and his social background did him in. He did not
have a clue about the common working man and woman. Why? Electing him would
mean the end of minimum wage, unions, benefits and any security left for someone
who works hard and can just barely keep their heads above water. The right to a
fair election would be in jeopardy, loading National barriers to the poor and
minorities to vote. Any hope of a College education for middle class would end
with the end of PELL and any other financial support. When Mitt said "go
ask your parents for the tuition" he showed just how naive he is of the
working people.I could go on, but the other writers covered it as well.
This had nothing to do with religion; I doubt more than 1/2 of 1% were
influenced by religion. The excuse is simply a cop out to the fact that we did
not want an Emperor
I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney - never was, but to say that because he is a
Latter-day Saint is the reason why he lost the 2012 election is ludicrous.
Romney was not ashamed to say that he is a member of the Church and he should
never be to do so. Even the President acknowledge the Romney family's
service to the country in his acceptance speech (to a point). It is really no
ones business what religious denomination a person adheres to and calling that
said denomination a 'cult' because of past issues or just because
you're to asinine to understand just makes the person doing the
name-calling look really rather pathetic. A minister, reverend, rector, vicar,
presbyter, bishop, brother or sister of Christ should know better. The pulpit is
not the place to be 'preaching' personal prejudices and negative
@OatmealI can't wait until she arrives so I can vote her!
Are we seriously quoting World Net Daily articles in a real newspaper? Could you
not find a good Onion link?You're better than this DN. What a
"Did Mitt Romney's faith cost him 2012 election?"No,
Mitt lost it.
It may have been a factor for some people. I would prefer that a candidates
religious affiliation be left out of the profiles, debates and discussions when
choosing elected officials. I also believe the same should apply for marital
status. After all isn't it illegal to ask job applicants about either when
How much lower can the Deseret News sink? To offer Jerome Corsi, the author of
the swiftboat propaganda against John Kerry any sort of publicity whatever is
ridiculous. And then to actually link to a story in the World News Daily (which
I like to think of as the World Nut Daily), as if that organization bore any
resemblance to an actual news organization, is just preposterous. (A current
headline at that site is "China selling 46-year old chicken for
food".)And once more, why are we still paying attention to Mitt
While Romney missed a lot of opportunities, I felt the big kicker was Hurricane
Sandy. Mitt had no ability to mobilize massive government resources and look
presidential in the wake of one of the worst disasters to hit the east coast,
and I think that clinched it for a lot of desperate people. All the rest of this
conjecture is kinda moot when an "Act of God" decides an election... :)
His faith was a factor. It was exploited by a nimble and well funded campaign to
suppress the white protestant vote. Romney lost because Obama's campaign
would literally do anything to get their man elected and the mainstream media
refused to have even an ounce of objectivity. The partisan nature of the media
and the hundreds of millions spent on negative ads and even the IRS targeting
conservative groups all factored into Obama's narrow win.Democrats always
have excelled Republicans in counting the votes. The Black vote was a higher
percentage than the white vote the nearly unlimited expenditure of unions in
getting out the vote was worth hundreds of millions. Collusion a book by L Brent
Bozell explains the media's bias in the election. Jonathan Alter a liberal
magazine editor presents the lefts view in his book The Center Held.Mitt
Romney's message didn't get out that he had a bold plan to create
jobs, quicly assist in getting the US energy independent and dealing effectively
with our $17 trillion deficit. We will continue to learn from this election.
It was his stale old Republicanism of the pre Teddy Roosevelt days that hurt him
the most. He was a combination of Taft and Coolidge. I hope another Mormon comes
to the forefront that resembles neither Reid nor Romney. They are Party men -
first and foremost.
His failed presidential election bid had little to do with his personal faith
and more to do with his lack of empathy, dry personality, poor strategy, and
association with Wall Street.
No.What cost him is that he and his party are out of touch.
The Republican party is too diverse for it to come together and really agree
upon anything or any one candidate. The only thing the Republicans have in
common is that they are against the Democrat's agenda. I believe this is
the root of the problem. Some republicans are very conservative, some are very
liberal and there is everything in between. They cannot agree enough on anything
to be anywhere near unified. "A house divided cannot stand" is a
description of the Republican party. Some want moral values while others only
want a good economy. Therefore, they cannot all get behind one person.I also agree that the majority of people who voted in this election wanted a
free lunch (life).
Mitt could not get a break from the media. The major portion of the media was
there to pounce on anything they could get their hands on that would tear down
Mitt and build up Obama. I am expecting more of the same in the next election.
Romney's religion had no effect on the actual outcome of the election.
However, it might possibly have had an effect on the margins in some states he
won anyway. And with an incredibly low probability it might have influenced one
swing state.In the final analysis there were only four (4) states
which were actually close at all (CO, FL, OH, and VA). Together they controlled
69 electoral votes. If (although incredibly unlikely) all four had voted for
Romney he would have managed to win by a exceeding the required 270 threshold by
five (5) electoral votes (instead of the 332 to 206 landslide for Obama, it
would have been 275 to 263 for Romney). Had Obama managed to win just one of
those four states Romney would have lost anyway. So the question of interest
is: how likely is it that being LDS would have been a meaningful factor in *all*
four of those states? The answer (in my next post) is: “Not at all
Now to look at each of those four states (two in this post): CO -
His religion likely helped him there. Turn out was highest among the
demographics which supported him, there just weren't quite enough who did.
His LDS faith likely motivated many there to vote for him. So being LDS did not
hurt him in CO.FL - we all know this state is balanced on a
razor's edge. Swinging back and forth and causing tremendous problems, but
given the similar outcomes in the last four presidential elections there it is
highly unlikely that Romney's religion was even a blip on the radar for
most voters. Probably at least 80% (and possibly even 90%) of likely voters in
Florida had their minds made up on whether they were voting Democrat or
Republican long before Romney was even nominated. So here the effect was likely
To sum up the effects of Romney's religion on the four possible swing
states where the final vote was close enough that the effect could conceivably
matter - the final analysis is Romney's religion might have cost him
VA's 13 electoral votes, but even that is a stretch and highly unlikely.So likely the practical effect was nothing at all. Obama wins with a
really big landslide, or a big landslide (over 300 electoral votes either way).
This article is wrong on 2 levels:#1 The election was 8 MONTHS ago.#2 It promotes/highlights Jerome Corsi's book. WND does not
qualify as a high quality, high standard, ethical news organization. Factcheck (2008) summed it up best in regard to Jerome Corsi:"Corsi is a renowned conspiracy theorist who says that George Bush is
attempting to create a North American Union (we looked at that here) and that
there is evidence that the World Trade Center may have collapsed because it was
seeded with explosives. More recently, Corsi claimed that Obama released a fake
birth certificate. We’ve debunked that twice now. And, as our colleagues
at PolitiFact found, many of the themes in "The Obama Nation" are
reworked versions of bogus chain e-mail smears.A practical rule of
thumb for everyday living is to rely on sources that have proven themselves to
be trustworthy, and to check even on those when an issue is in dispute.In Corsi’s case, we judge that both his reputation and his latest book
fall short when measured by the standards of good scholarship, or even of
"Did Mitt Romney's faith cost him 2012 election?"No,
but his tone deafness to Middle-Class America did.
After reading these comments - did I miss something? Did whining and excuse
making become the Fourteenth Article of Faith?
Romney lost because he did not get out the same vote that McCain got. Why that
vote sat home is the question. After reading some posts, I am most surprised
that there are any Obama supporters left when you see the complete failure of
him as president. That is unless you are just taking from government. Then I
suppose he is the best president ever. Enjoy it now because it won't last.
@LDSObama is also very wealthy (1%er) He gave less of it away, has big
friends in high places and lives the stereotypical "rich lifestyle."
Romney may be stupid rich, be had was also self-made. Most Americans would
connect better with Romney if given a fair perspective of each candidate. Romney
lost election for several reasons: Meida bias on the left, bigotry on both sides
of the aisle, low participation from grass roots conservative groups (IRS
anyone), a divided right (not going to get into the election night discrepancies
in several states such as 100+% voter turnout in key Obama areas). The religion
certainly played a role in it as well.
I voted for Obama but I'm still waiting for my "gifts" and
"handouts." Maybe I should change my name to AIG, GM, Chrysler or
Chase. If I eat enormous amounts of red meat and bacon, will I "become too
big to fail" and hitch a ride on the corporate gravy train?
Nothing draws out the Mormon haters as much as a story about Mormons. Did you
know there are actually so called Christians who spend most of their waking
moments badmouthing the Church? If these people spent just half as much time
performing genuine Christian acts the world would be a better place.
One could easily list a hundred reasons Mitt lost.Being a Mormon was
surely one. But it was only one....and far from the biggest.Many of
those reasons are attributable to media bias....including the media's
anti-LDS bias which came through in much of the reporting on the LDS angle
itself. But that was only a small part of how media bias presented itself.Many of those reasons have to do with trail gaffs by the candidate (or
his wife: the 47%, the $10,000 bet, binders of women, etc. that all fed into
the "not like us" problem - which over all was the killer.Many of those reasons have to do with the competence of the campaign
organization. Being a community organizer may not make you a good President,
but it may make for a great campaign. Mitt's corporate success was not
evident in his campaign organization/strategy.But Mitt really lost
before he started. He should have instructed his blind trust to purge his
portfolio of embarrassing investments and be ready to disclose his taxes
sometime in early 2012.He should have known his wealth would not play well
for a Republican.Mitt was no George.
Could it also have something to do with the Bengahzi incident; which facts were
concealed from the American people during the election? Could it have something
to do with a multitude of scenarios that are too much to even consider at this
point.I think Mr. Romney is an honorable man; even if he does have
money. If we start condemning anyone who is rich, then we had better set all of
the poor people in prison free first, because we won't have room to
incarcerate them all otherwise.If we weigh a person's personal
worth by the skeletons in his closet, then neither candidate should have won.
Would Romney have been a good president or a bad one? We'll never know.
his religion did not even help him with fellow Mormons, in the states that do
exit polling by religion he received a lower percentage of LDS vote than Bush or
McCain. Look up the facts, he got 3 million less votes than McCain,
Conservatives sat home because he lacks any principles. He has been for and
against gun control, he has been for and against abortion. he wanted to
eliminate "parts" of Obamacare and replace it with Romneycare. He ran
very aggressive "nasty" campaign against his Republican primary
opponents and a sissy campaign against Obama. He was a terrible candidate.
In the past century the "better man" has always lost. The better man
may not have been the better politician, but the man with higher moral
character. So the outcome does not surprise me.
The time has finally come to make a little addition to an old saying...."Following the end of the world, there will still be roaches, Cher, and
articles written about Mitt Romney losing the Presidential Election in
Utah's Deseret News".
Romney lost for one reason, President Obama ran a better, more disciplined
campaign. End of story.
Mitt Romney lost the election because he chose a radical-right running mate,
sold out to the Tea Party, and appeared economically out of touch with most
Americans. The media wasn't any harder on him than on anyone else.
I'm LDS and I didn't vote for him for the same reasons most other
Americans didn't--I lost confidence in him and was appalled at his choices
and comments. You can blame religion and the media all you want, but no one is
to blame but Mitt Romney himself; he gave away an election he should have won.
Romney lost because people failed to educate themselves on what both parties
beliefs are. They just go off of what the media tells them. People also want the
government to provide everything for them. Now our country is going down the
hole, and people who have been working their whole life are going to have to go
on government subsidies.
Mark Shields of The PBS News Hour gave a cogent evaluation. He usually appears
with David Brooks and is usually the more liberal of the two. He stated that
Romney lost because of the "appearance of the lack of empathy" for the
common man. Conservatives may not like that interpretation but it is what it is.
Republicans are in danger of falling into "the dustbin of history". They
are fading like the Whigs. The current administration has a definite agenda of
complete government control in order to reform society. There is a deep need for
a third party movement in the vision of JFK and labor. Sixty percent of the 2010
census are immigrant stock from Europe which is traditional labor. This image of
lack of empathy is driving those in the middle to vote for the radical left.
Immigrants from Mexico are the one group which can be salvaged. Rubio the Cuban
is their co-called champion. Unless the Republicans get organized, the only
Latinos who will vote Republican are the 0.6% Cuban and maybe the 1.5% Puerto
Rican. Mexican immigrants are 10.6%. Conservatives need to come up with a
"new plan, Stan".
With the NSA and every word that Mitt has said in the last 20+ years at hand,
how could anyone including clean-cut Mitt Romney win an election.I
remember the the animal abuse story (dog on top of the car) story airing on
every news station for like five days straight.
Romney's faith didn't play into his second round at all...It was his
weak position on Bosnia, and that he had no solid concessions for ending the
conflict, and the overthrow of the Serbian gov't. The third debate was the
deciding factor. There are plenty of Mormons who have run and been elected, and
all of them were challenged or criticized. Senator Reed Smoot was constantly
lampooned by the press, Ezra Taft Benson had eggs thrown at his car for his
position on farm subsidies, Joseph Smith was martyred. And Orrin Hatch never
acquired more than 3% in the polls during his laughable run for president.
Mitt's daddy George might have won had he not sided with Tricky Dickie
Nixon, and supported Barry Goldwater. The idea that Mormonism was the thing that
defeated Mitt is a weak argument.
The press never favored him, from day one, for one reason only, for not agreeing
with gay marriage. Case in point? Just look at the favorable press John Huntsman
got from the media (excluding the right-leaning media). Connect the dots and do
the math my friends.
I guess if one is Mormon he/she may feel one good achievement by Romney is that
with a little arm twisting and a few dollars he got Billy Gram to take the
Mormons and a few others off the cult black list.
Ok liberals, Romney's religion had little to no effect on the outcome of
the election.Romney had to fight against not only the Obama
campaign, but against most of the major news outlets that were nothing more than
lapdogs for Obama.For example, how many times did we have to hear
about the dog on the roof, or the un-confirmed haircuting story? Now, how much
did we hear about Obama smoking pot as a teen, or how much did we hear about how
in Obama's own memoirs he exagerated or lied about events?You
see, the press took any little fault of Romney's and blew it out of
proportion, while allowing Obama to smoke dope and lie to the american public.
@RedshirtMIT"Now, how much did we hear about Obama smoking pot as a
teen"Clinton smoked pot when he was younger. So did Bush. When
you get to three presidents in a row doing the same thing you kinda stop caring
anymore (and start wondering why the heck something safer than tobacco is
illegal... except for it's exactly what the tobacco lobby wants because
they don't want competition).
If anything, Romney's faith helped him. It showed him as a responsible
Christian, a real asset in a national election. I'm sure that got him many
votes, maybe millions of votes.For me, I did not vote for him. As I
stated earlier, i fely he was out of touch with the average American. His
business savvy is well established, but his compassionate side was lacking
during the campaign.
The teachings of Robert Jeffress dos'nt represent Jesus Christ. I think the
number I heard was about three million Evangelist that stayed home who
did'nt want to vote for Obama or a Mormon. I know of a few, and I enjoy
getting into conversations about whose church is more Christ Like. On there own
turf, using the Bible everytime. The Jehovah Witness missionaries stopped coming
to my house.
I don't believe it was Mitt's faith that cost him the election, but
rather his lack of faith... his lack of faith in the middle class and poor. He
comes across as an elitist, not just by the fact that he is wealthy, but in how
he projects an air of disdain for those less fortunate than himself. The 47%
comment wasn't the source of that feeling about Mitt. It was merely a
confirmation of what I had already been suspecting. In the voting booth, it was
impossible for me to imagine Mitt fairly representing the economic interests of
the less than wealthy.
I think that Romney did a decent job as governor in Massachusetts, and I was a
supporter the first time around in 2008, but that was not the same man who ran
for president in 2012. I am active LDS and voted against Romney. If religion
played a role in his defeat, it was because many of us felt that his policies,
platforms, attitudes, arrogance, disdain for people who work for a living,
pandering to bigotry, and general cluelessness were inconsistent with principles
of the Gospel. I was embarrassed by what he tried to be in his attempt to
solidify his standing with the hateful right-wing extremists.Some
commenters here will jump to the conclusion that I am a "taker" of the
47%. My income is at the 95 percentile, I have a doctor's degree, and
owned two businesses that employed several hundred people. But I also tried to
do that in accordance with Gospel principles, with above-market wages, medical
insurance, and a generous retirement plan. I gave away what I did not need and
never became wealthy, but I could not support Romney, as his way of doing things
is the antithesis of what I believe in.
to Just-Commenting @12:36. You speak for many of us. Our religion requires us
to rise above partisan politics. And to not take sides. Rather, we must seek
out good people from wherever they come. To live our religion regardless of
political winds.There are many cultural members of our church. They
carry on traditions, which are honorable, but may not rise to the standards of
the Gospel. We must step above traditions and culture and live our religion
according to scripture.None of us can do this perfectly. But, we
can recognize that calling and try our best.Thank you for your
thoughtful and thought-provoking comments.
To "atl134" I think you are helping to prove my point. Most people
don't know that Clinton, like Obama smoked pot. However, any transgression
that Bush had was made national headlines for weeks on end.So tell
us, how are the Republicans supposed to have a campaign that is equal to the
Democrats when the Democrats are only glorified and have any past indiscretions
hidden or ignored?
Romney lost because of the following reasons:1. Hard to beat the
first African-American president who is also a media darling2.
Mitt's 47% comment3. Hurricane Sandy - had the storm never
happened, or happened 1 week later, Romney would have likely won. Sandy
provided BHO with an opportunity to look presidential and to show compassion.
The Hugger didn't help Mitt's case either.
I am a proud liberal and a democrat. I voted for Obama and was thrilled that he
won a second term. I don't believe that the reason Romney lost was because
of his religion. He lost because he had no diversity and his 47% remark. And
technonerd7 I highly recommend that you volunteer at a homeless shelter.
Redshirt...Who over 30 doesn't know that Clinton smoked pot?
Seriously! The "I didn't inhale" comment is infamous. In fact,
all of Clinton's personal indiscretions were very widely covered by the
press. I think most people view smoking pot in a different light
than assaulting a fellow student or animal abuse. Smoking pot, especially back
in the 70's and 80's is viewed by many as a youthful right of passage.
It's gained a certain amount of social acceptance. Physical assault and
animal abuse portray a mean-spirited character trait that hasn't yet, nor
should it ever gain any degree of social acceptance.
JLFuller says:"Nothing draws out the Mormon haters as much as a
story about Mormons. Did you know there are actually so called Christians who
spend most of their waking moments badmouthing the Church?"The
LDS church spent decades bad-mouthing other religions (they're all of the
devil, etc.). -- glass houses, stones and all that jazz.@UtahVET1;I suppose you're not going to use the VA or accept
any government benefits due you from your military service then?@RedShirtMIT;"Most people don't know that Clinton, like
Obama smoked pot."Are you kidding? The "I never
inhaled" gaffe was repeated endlessly.
Merich 39: Don't think I'm the only one who recognizes
that cocaine use (such as Obama has admitted to) is just ever-so-slightly more
serious than the media-enhanced stories of “assault of a fellow
student” and “animal abuse” by Romney.To assault
the character of a good man like Romney through slanderous lies such as the
media today used against him is exactly what the prophet Isaiah warned against
when he wrote, regarding the Last Days: “Woe unto them that call evil
good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (5:20)
To "merich39" you still don't get it. How big of a deal did the
media make of Clinton smoking pot? Did it get the same attention and scrutiny
that Romney putting the dog on the roof got? Or was it more like the story
buried in the paper about Obama eating dog?But back in teh
1970's and 1980's putting a dog in a dog carrier on top of your full
station wagon wasn't thought of as animal abuse back then either. The
assault is a myth created by the media, even the supposed victim doesn't
remember it. So, why the media attention on things that either never happened
or were socially acceptable when they occured when it was a Republican? Yet a
President who regularly did drugs as a teenager and writes about it is accepted?
Doesn't it tell you about the character of a person when they use drugs in
direct violation of Federal law then flaunt it in their memoirs? Doesn't
that show you a blatant disregard for the law? Shouldn't the President be
somebody that would honor the law?
@Lasvegaspam;Assault is a crime and it is definitely something to be
concerned about and it isn't something created to assault the good
character of the perp.Evil/good: assault of a fellow student; which
is it? Good or evil? You should be careful when quoting that scripture, it
also refers to things you probably do yourself.@RedShirtMIT;The victim of the assault is dead these days so, of course, he
doesn't remember it; but friends of Romney's at the time do. It
isn't a myth.
to EdGrady 7/16 8:52a "Did whining and excuse making become the
Fourteenth Article of Faith?"You haven't been on this
website long, have you? It really doesn't get "interesting" til
football season.to EdGrady @ 9:02 a.m.Probably not.
Unless, you have an Ivy League degree. They were about the only ones Uncle Sam
re: killpack 9:33pIt would seem your tin foil hat is on a little too
tight.Last I checked homebuilder confidence is up, price of gold is
going down, etc..."Actually, credit limits are set by creditors.
One day, Uncle Sam's creditors will say enough is enough."And what will you do if China (US's major creditor) says no more and
Walmart goes bankrupt??
Romney lost because he does not have the common touch. I know people who wanted
to support him. But the closer they got, the more they noticed a culture in his
closest staff and supporters that made you either friend or foe. There was no
middle ground. If you were not 100% for him, or voiced any concern about any of
his policies, you became persona non grata. Romney's religion
did not kill his presidential bid, Romney killed it.
I think a small minority did not vote for him purely on his faith. I think
Romney was as pure a republican canidate the party has ever had, no skeletons,
strong morals, and an expert economist perfect for the time. Even that being the
case the US is in a state of illness. Poor, loosing homes, expensive healthcare,
and joblessness. A sick person in the moment doesn't think, maybe I should
change the way I live to become stronger than ever. No, they think give me a fix
now, and who cares about tomorrow. Obama was that idea of quick medicine and
feel better now, but not nessesarily fixing the problems that got us sick and
keep us sick.
@LDS Are you saying that petty jealousy on the part of voters is why Mitt
@ junkgeek - Agua Dulce, TX - "He was simply a terrible candidate."You, Sir/Ma'am, do not have a clue what you're talking about.
None.In 2007 (in the run-up to the 2008 election) I backed McCain
until I saw Romney speak in Houston, TX in December 2007 at his "Faith In
America" speech. Find it on YouTube. Anyone with an ounce of love in their
heart for America knows every word he said is true.Terrible
candidate?Not even close.I started following Romney
right then and there, and over almost FIVE YEARS of research, from MULTIPLE
sources (ie, NOT just the Deseret News), I found 28 qualifications Mitt Romney
had to be President. TWENTY EIGHT. They ranged in everything to the massive
amounts of FREE public service he rendered (the 2004 Olympics salaray he
donated) to his $1 salary as MA governeor, to the 13+ yrs of service as a Mormon
bishop and stake president to the MILLIONS he gave away to charity (even NOT
taking LDS tithing and offerings into account) to his elite grades he earned in
college to his broke state budget he turned into a multi BILLION $ surplus as MA
I believe Mitt's inability to understand and connect with the
"common" citizen was a serious fault. Our president must be able to
understand, empathize, respect and see the joy or sorrow in our everyday lives.
He or she cannot be aloof or incapable of those feelings.I believe
Mitt is incapable of substantive understanding of everyday America. I
don't know him personally nor have I ever talked to him nor seen him in
person. I formed my opinion from watching the presidential debates. I'm
sure the many millions of voters also gained their opinion from afar.Back to the original question: "Did Mitt Romney's faith cost him 2012
election?" My answer is No. If anything his active membership in our
church and recognition that he is Christian helped him get millions of votes.
If he had a Christian demeanor and way of communicating with or ablout the
American citizen (and non-citizen), then he could have gained more votes.
Arizona Reader: "Obama has far surpassed Bush in awfulness."Furry
1993: "As bad as Obama is"Technonerd: "The problem is, the
government is out of money, and eventually, after we lose 2 more stars on the
credit rating, the government will have no money to give the 50% of Americans
leeching off of the system, and then mass hunger, and rioting will occur. Is
there a need for government help, absolutely. Does 50% of the country need to be
on it? NO."I disagree with all 3 of you. I voted for Obama and
I'm glad I did and I'm glad that he won. He was the best person to
take on the mess that Bush left us. And the country will be even better off
when we get rid of the do-nothing Congress in 2014.
How can I address so many of the posters?If his wealth was an issue,
why wasn't it an issue with John Kerry at the time. I guess it's ok
to be filthy rich, as long as you are a Democrat.I guess it's
ok if you once headed the KKK, but not ok if your religion once prohibited
blacks from holding the priesthood. It's ok if you are a Dem?I
guess the Christian preachers are more OK with Obama in office than Mitt. By
not voting, you simply voted for Obama. Brilliant.Two primary
reasons he lost is because he was not the 'candy man' giving away
stuff to every special interest group. The second reason is that many on the GOP
side were intimidated by the IRS (as well documented recently). Donate to a
conservative cause and your taxes will not ony be audited but the EPA and other
agencies will audit you as well. And now the country has the mess
it has. Too late to complain. Even the Dem's now admit that Obamacare is
a 'train wreck'. Welcome to the train wreck. You voted for it!
To "LDS" that was more of a false perception. If you saw a lot of the
side stories that were often buried, you saw that Mitt was very grounded and
understood the common people quite well. His time as a Bishop, for example, he
had to help people deal with common everyday plights.Even during his
business days, he showed concern for his employees and considered what their
needs were.The problem was the media distorting anything and
everything they could with half truths and complete lies.
Someone should have told our good brother Mitt that he shouldn't imply
voters are lazy freeloaders. Even though it's true, there's no reason
to articulate that during an election. Very unwise on his part.
It can be answered this way: Huntsman would have beaten Obama and he's
Mormon as well. Romney had many faults as a candidate. With a high unemployment
rate the election was his to lose and he lost. The reasons are many but his
religion is not one of them.
Huntsman would have won and he's a Mormon.
Yes, Mitt was a horrid candidate -- and I personally think he was running out of
duty to the lds church and being pushed by Ann (who came across as Marie
Antoinette)Yes, there are many stories of his helping people through his
church, where it is expected, but many examples of his non-church actions being
uncaring about workers, etc. As much as he tried to take back the 47% remark,
everyone knows he believed it.As for his faith being a factor --- I
personally observed a lot of changing stories, flip flopping, etc, from him. I
have also personally experienced lds people who seemed not to mind lying to me
or looking down on me, because I am an outsider. It reminded me of 2008 in
California, when awful lies and manipulation were part of the Yes on 8 campaign,
run by lds people. THAT factor, a "bad" side of some mormons, was what
Romney was just too liberal. He didn't offer enough conservative
alternatives to Obama. Those who live off the government are just larger in
number than the conservatives who stayed home rather than vote for either one.
Religion may have been important to an insignificant number of voters. Our
country just is not that religious to care.
I beg to differ with the previous comments. Mitt Romney was a man of integrity,
organizational skills that would make the next person envious. Loving your
Heavenly Father and committing to a religion does not make him less of a man or
candidate. He is not perfect as we are not. His humble demeanor was intimidating
to many of which is a sad note.He is a god-fearing man who loves his
family and his Church and is completely dedicated to standing true to what he
believes to be right and he loves the United States of America with all of his
heart. The USA lost out when he was not elected.
Mitt lost because...Harry ried told liesabout Mitt's taxes. Of
course Mitt had a low tax rate. But that's not his fault. It was the work
of the Congress who's job it is to set tax rates. Unfortunately, the low
information public's vote counts the same as the informed. Too bad, to.
It may well be the the death knell of our nation.He didn't
promise mega-handouts to the masses.
I can't speak for others, but his faith cost him my vote.