Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems. The only way a Dem candidate could pull Mormons would be by coming out against gay marriage and abortion, and by so doing, they'd stand to lose at least as much from the conventional dem sources as they'd gain from Mormons.
That they announced this shortly after Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele gaffed his way into another controversy, this time regarding the evident anti-Mormon bigotry in Evangelical Christian circles, is nothing less than political poetry. Steele said, on Bill Bennett's radio show, "Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism..."
...
The appointment of Huntsman is thus, politically, a slam dunk. When GOP primary voters inevitably reject Romney once again in the 2012 primaries and caucuses outside of the Mountain West, the resentment - already boiling after last year's adventures in presidential politics - among rank-and-file Mormons that the party to whom they've given so much still doesn't really want them in the Master's house rather than the servant's quarters, will sting. Meanwhile, another of their prominent citizens will likely still be Obama's man in Beijing, proof that somebody in American politics isn't dissing the LDS and its members. And in key swing states like Nevada and Colorado, LDS members are legion.
Some said Obama was crazy, back in 2007 and 2008, to reach out to what conventional wisdom thought was an impenetrable GOP base... Crazy, like a fox.
Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems.
I betcha the young'uns aren't.
Young'uns aren't the one with straps of cash, the church itself is. Although, I will grant you, that it's still worth trying to attract the demographic, for the votes.
Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems.
I betcha the young'uns aren't.
Young'uns aren't the one with straps of cash, the church itself is. Although, I will grant you, that it's still worth trying to attract the demographic, for the votes.
There's only so far a demographic will support a party while being utterly ignored and ridiculed. They may be religious, but they aren't politically stupid, especially if Obama is making serious steps to respect them while their traditional party does the former.
That they announced this shortly after Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele gaffed his way into another controversy, this time regarding the evident anti-Mormon bigotry in Evangelical Christian circles, is nothing less than political poetry. Steele said, on Bill Bennett's radio show, "Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism..."
...
The appointment of Huntsman is thus, politically, a slam dunk. When GOP primary voters inevitably reject Romney once again in the 2012 primaries and caucuses outside of the Mountain West, the resentment - already boiling after last year's adventures in presidential politics - among rank-and-file Mormons that the party to whom they've given so much still doesn't really want them in the Master's house rather than the servant's quarters, will sting. Meanwhile, another of their prominent citizens will likely still be Obama's man in Beijing, proof that somebody in American politics isn't dissing the LDS and its members. And in key swing states like Nevada and Colorado, LDS members are legion.
Some said Obama was crazy, back in 2007 and 2008, to reach out to what conventional wisdom thought was an impenetrable GOP base... Crazy, like a fox.
Ironic considering this is the religion that still believes that the President is black because of the Mark of Cain.
I am sorry, no. Democratic Mormons are about as rare as Black or Gay Republicans, and are usually just as shunned by their peers.
Not in the Four Corners states.
That said, I always took the LDS and its members as being for non-interference given the history of the church and other inclinations I've noticed. But aside from that, I don't think it's a coincidence that Mo Udall was the first really prominent Mormon politician.
People can bitch all they want, but LDS members moved in force for Prop 8 in Cali, and they are a huge, untapped (for Dems) money source.
Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems.
I betcha the young'uns aren't.
Young'uns aren't the one with straps of cash, the church itself is. Although, I will grant you, that it's still worth trying to attract the demographic, for the votes.
There's only so far a demographic will support a party while being utterly ignored and ridiculed. They may be religious, but they aren't politically stupid, especially if Obama is making serious steps to respect them while their traditional party does the former.
Agreed, but I still don't see the Mormon Church throwing it's cash behind Obama/Dems in general simply because they've been snubbed one too many times by the GOP.
Now, 8-12 years from now? Yeah, then I see some Mormons with cash who are of a mindset that social issues and politics aren't really needed to be entwined.
People can bitch all they want, but LDS members moved in force for Prop 8 in Cali, and they are a huge, untapped (for Dems) money source.
Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems.
I betcha the young'uns aren't.
Young'uns aren't the one with straps of cash, the church itself is. Although, I will grant you, that it's still worth trying to attract the demographic, for the votes.
There's only so far a demographic will support a party while being utterly ignored and ridiculed. They may be religious, but they aren't politically stupid, especially if Obama is making serious steps to respect them while their traditional party does the former.
Agreed, but I still don't see the Mormon Church throwing it's cash behind Obama/Dems in general simply because they've been snubbed one too many times by the GOP.
Now, 8-12 years from now? Yeah, then I see some Mormons with cash who are of a mindset that social issues and politics aren't really needed to be entwined.
Simply withholding it from the Republicans would be more than enough.
I am sorry, no. Democratic Mormons are about as rare as Black or Gay Republicans, and are usually just as shunned by their peers.
Not in the Four Corner states.
This is probably true. My experiences with Mormons primarily brought me into contact with Salt Lake Valley Mormons (true red Republican) and the ones on the West Coast (not as psycho, but still pretty red Republican and still really quick to shun any Democratic Mormons). The other areas, it is reasonable that they moderate their social and economic positions the further they get away from temple square, only to contract politically once they extend past a certain point.
People can bitch all they want, but LDS members moved in force for Prop 8 in Cali, and they are a huge, untapped (for Dems) money source.
Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems.
I betcha the young'uns aren't.
Young'uns aren't the one with straps of cash, the church itself is. Although, I will grant you, that it's still worth trying to attract the demographic, for the votes.
There's only so far a demographic will support a party while being utterly ignored and ridiculed. They may be religious, but they aren't politically stupid, especially if Obama is making serious steps to respect them while their traditional party does the former.
Agreed, but I still don't see the Mormon Church throwing it's cash behind Obama/Dems in general simply because they've been snubbed one too many times by the GOP.
Now, 8-12 years from now? Yeah, then I see some Mormons with cash who are of a mindset that social issues and politics aren't really needed to be entwined.
Simply withholding it from the Republicans would be more than enough.
Point. Especially in the western states, where the Dems are gaining ground.
....the Dems are gaining ground out West, right? Like, not the Pacific states, the states just east of those.
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
I'm curious though, the Mormons are Republican yet the Christian part of the party hates the Mormon part. How the hell do they expect to keep those two parts together?
I'm curious though, the Mormons are Republican yet the Christian part of the party hates the Mormon part. How the hell do they expect to keep those two parts together?
Enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thinking. Also, Mormons are Christians, so a better term would be Protestant/Evangelical part of the party vs. Mormon part.
I'm curious though, the Mormons are Republican yet the Christian part of the party hates the Mormon part. How the hell do they expect to keep those two parts together?
The same way the Dems keep their spiritually opposed demographics aligned, by emphasizing the similarities (god is good, gays, abortion bad).
The Dems just have a much easier time with it. For the GOP, the Evangelicals tend to get to the mic too often to keep much more than a tenuous peace.
Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems.
I betcha the young'uns aren't.
Don't be so sure. McCain won Utah's 18-29 age bracket 62-33, statistically indistinguishable from the state at large. A majority (55%) of voters decided before September who they were voting for. McCain won the Mormon vote in Utah by 78% (and 75% of voters were Mormon). Its not going to happen
Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems.
I betcha the young'uns aren't.
Don't be so sure. McCain won Utah's 18-29 age bracket 62-33, statistically indistinguishable from the state at large. A majority (55%) of voters decided before September who they were voting for. McCain won the Mormon vote in Utah by 78% (and 75% of voters were Mormon). Its not going to happen
Colorado/Arizona/New Mexico would be the targets, I'd think?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems.
I betcha the young'uns aren't.
Don't be so sure. McCain won Utah's 18-29 age bracket 62-33, statistically indistinguishable from the state at large. A majority (55%) of voters decided before September who they were voting for. McCain won the Mormon vote in Utah by 78% (and 75% of voters were Mormon). Its not going to happen
Colorado/Arizona/New Mexico would be the targets, I'd think?
Seems like it'd be a hell of a lot easier to just ramp up your margins with Hispanics in those states, rather than go for Mormons.
I mean, considering that Hispanics are a much faster-growing voter demographic, and are predisposed to vote Democratic in large margins to begin with.
I think he's probably trying to promote his bi-partisan credentials and also pick off Huntsman as a prominent voice in the party -- promoting the death spiral. But I don't see reaching out to Mormons as a real strategy, especially in the southwest where Hispanics are a more powerful bloc in every state except Utah
Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems.
I betcha the young'uns aren't.
Don't be so sure. McCain won Utah's 18-29 age bracket 62-33, statistically indistinguishable from the state at large. A majority (55%) of voters decided before September who they were voting for. McCain won the Mormon vote in Utah by 78% (and 75% of voters were Mormon). Its not going to happen
Colorado/Arizona/New Mexico would be the targets, I'd think?
There aren't a whole lot of Mormons there, not really. Nevada has the 4th most (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming) at 7%, Arizona is 5% and Colorado has 2%.
Mormons have a strong tendency to be both very conservative and strongly partisan (GOP). It makes no sense to go after them, especially in a region where there's a clear demographic to "woo" (Hispanics)
Also, I don't think the Religious Right can really ignore the LDS after Prop 8. They can point out that if it hadn't been for the infusion of Mormon cash and Mormon manpower, they would have lost at the polls.
Which, when you think about it, is probably the underlying reason that the LDS did dump that much money and effort into the Prop 8 race - it was an attempt to buy a seat at the table. And frankly, it probably worked.
Yeah, I'd wager Mormons are too hung up on social issues to be comfortable with the Dems.
I betcha the young'uns aren't.
Don't be so sure. McCain won Utah's 18-29 age bracket 62-33, statistically indistinguishable from the state at large. A majority (55%) of voters decided before September who they were voting for. McCain won the Mormon vote in Utah by 78% (and 75% of voters were Mormon). Its not going to happen
Colorado/Arizona/New Mexico would be the targets, I'd think?
There aren't a whole lot of Mormons there, not really. Nevada has the 4th most (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming) at 7%, Arizona is 5% and Colorado has 2%.
Mormons have a strong tendency to be both very conservative and strongly partisan (GOP). It makes no sense to go after them, especially in a region where there's a clear demographic to "woo" (Hispanics)
Obama can fart and chew gum at the same time. He (and the party in general) can go after Hispanics and chip away at the Mormons at the same time.
Which, when you think about it, is probably the underlying reason that the LDS did dump that much money and effort into the Prop 8 race - it was an attempt to buy a seat at the table. And frankly, it probably worked.
Naw. People who pay lip service to evangelical Christians still control the Republican Party, and they still think Mormons are dirty fucking heathens by and large.
Obama can fart and chew gum at the same time. He (and the party in general) can go after Hispanics and chip away at the Mormons at the same time.
That presumes he can chip away at Mormons. But we're talking about a constituency that only exists in large numbers in the most Republican/conservative states in the union. Obama is not going to win Utah and he's not going to win Idaho. He's not going to crack 40% in Utah, and he won't crack 45% in Idaho. There's exactly one competitive Congressional district in Utah and the Dems already have it. The Dems already control a non-competive district in Idaho (probably only for these two years) because the freshman Republican that held it was hated by even Republicans as unstable and combative. Why would Obama expend political capital trying to sway an isolated and small constituency in states he has no chance of winning? It'd be like the GOP trying to win over Massachusetts gays because Obama hasn't supported gay marriage.
But let's just pretend he can, or had to. They are Western white right wing to conservative by-and-large. What do you think is the one issue they are most unhappy with the national Republican party about? Mexican immigration. Can you see a problem there?
It's a 50 state strategy, not a 38 state strategy.
Utah - liberalism is coming for you.
You know, I've met quite a few mormons and they've all been some of my favorite people.
Although I don't know if the ones who make it out to New England are just a special subset or not.
Mormons are often very nice people. Scientologists can also be very nice people. That having been said, I wouldn't want an adherent of either to be president because I view adherence to either of those wacky belief systems as indicative of some serious personal and cognitive flaws.
It's a 50 state strategy, not a 38 state strategy.
Yeah but the 50 state is "compete in 50 states," not "spend resources uniformly." Dean doesn't expect to win in rural Utah or Idaho or Wyoming. The idea is to force Republicans to spend money in those districts, raise money in those districts, be in position to win if some scandal happens and to run appropriate candidates to the district. Utah-1 and Utah-3 are more Republican than any district held by a Democrat (Utah-2 is SLC and is held by a Dem despite overall R+15). Utah as a whole is more Republican than any district held by a Democrat.
Run someone? Sure. Encourage local party development? Sure. Have Obama direct his attention to wooing Mormons? When he couldn't pull 40% of the vote and has no chance of winning those three states in 2012? It just doesn't make sense when there are so many places to defend and better districts to focus on. There's two Dem districts in Illinois and Delaware at large that are held by Republicans and the WH has a lot more sway there than in places that voted 2-1 against them
It's a 50 state strategy, not a 38 state strategy.
Yeah but the 50 state is "compete in 50 states," not "spend resources uniformly." Dean doesn't expect to win in rural Utah or Idaho or Wyoming. The idea is to force Republicans to spend money in those districts, raise money in those districts, be in position to win if some scandal happens and to run appropriate candidates to the district. Utah-1 and Utah-3 are more Republican than any district held by a Democrat (Utah-2 is SLC and is held by a Dem despite overall R+15). Utah as a whole is more Republican than any district held by a Democrat.
Run someone? Sure. Encourage local party development? Sure. Have Obama direct his attention to wooing Mormons? When he couldn't pull 40% of the vote and has no chance of winning those three states in 2012? It just doesn't make sense when there are so many places to defend and better districts to focus on. There's two Dem districts in Illinois and Delaware at large that are held by Republicans and the WH has a lot more sway there than in places that voted 2-1 against them
I guess I don't realize how appointing a moderate Republican governor who's a Mormon to overseas and not being a douche to their religion/adherents, while the GOP continues to, is expending a lot of resources on the subject. To me that seems a rather cheap deal if it pays any kinds of dividends over time.
It's a 50 state strategy, not a 38 state strategy.
Yeah but the 50 state is "compete in 50 states," not "spend resources uniformly." Dean doesn't expect to win in rural Utah or Idaho or Wyoming. The idea is to force Republicans to spend money in those districts, raise money in those districts, be in position to win if some scandal happens and to run appropriate candidates to the district. Utah-1 and Utah-3 are more Republican than any district held by a Democrat (Utah-2 is SLC and is held by a Dem despite overall R+15). Utah as a whole is more Republican than any district held by a Democrat.
Run someone? Sure. Encourage local party development? Sure. Have Obama direct his attention to wooing Mormons? When he couldn't pull 40% of the vote and has no chance of winning those three states in 2012? It just doesn't make sense when there are so many places to defend and better districts to focus on. There's two Dem districts in Illinois and Delaware at large that are held by Republicans and the WH has a lot more sway there than in places that voted 2-1 against them
I guess I don't realize how appointing a moderate Republican governor who's a Mormon to overseas and not being a douche to their religion/adherents, while the GOP continues to, is expending a lot of resources on the subject. To me that seems a rather cheap deal if it pays any kinds of dividends over time.
I was talking about people's suggestions that Mormons should be targeted as a group to try to bring them over to the Democratic side because evangelical Protestants don't like them (see Romney). Huntsman wasn't tapped because he was Mormon, he was tapped because he's a Republican who could cause trouble and/or be more use serving his country than his party
It's a 50 state strategy, not a 38 state strategy.
Yeah but the 50 state is "compete in 50 states," not "spend resources uniformly." Dean doesn't expect to win in rural Utah or Idaho or Wyoming. The idea is to force Republicans to spend money in those districts, raise money in those districts, be in position to win if some scandal happens and to run appropriate candidates to the district. Utah-1 and Utah-3 are more Republican than any district held by a Democrat (Utah-2 is SLC and is held by a Dem despite overall R+15). Utah as a whole is more Republican than any district held by a Democrat.
Run someone? Sure. Encourage local party development? Sure. Have Obama direct his attention to wooing Mormons? When he couldn't pull 40% of the vote and has no chance of winning those three states in 2012? It just doesn't make sense when there are so many places to defend and better districts to focus on. There's two Dem districts in Illinois and Delaware at large that are held by Republicans and the WH has a lot more sway there than in places that voted 2-1 against them
I guess I don't realize how appointing a moderate Republican governor who's a Mormon to overseas and not being a douche to their religion/adherents, while the GOP continues to, is expending a lot of resources on the subject. To me that seems a rather cheap deal if it pays any kinds of dividends over time.
I was talking about people's suggestions that Mormons should be targeted as a group to try to bring them over to the Democratic side because evangelical Protestants don't like them (see Romney). Huntsman wasn't tapped because he was Mormon, he was tapped because he's a Republican who could cause trouble and/or be more use serving his country than his party
I guess I'm just not thinking of outreach in the same terms that you are, where it would be high cost for little reward. Rather I'm seeing it as little cost for perhaps slightly even less reward, but which sets a foundation which wouldn't otherwise exist. You don't have to get the backing of the Church Fathers or win over majorities, but simply being there and not being a douche in the process is beneficial. Especially when you have GOP officials basically telling Mormons to go fuck themselves. You don't necessarily have to be active in order to woo people, sometimes just being there is enough of an attraction.
Making them blue and making them less red aren't quite the same thing.
And I don't see this as happening too much. Mormon culture is incredibly red, and until they stop practicing a culture that fits hand in hand with Republican values (such as women primarily being baby makers, extreme male-centrism, "classic moral values," etc.) this will continue.
I guess I'm just not thinking of outreach in the same terms that you are, where it would be high cost for little reward. Rather I'm seeing it as little cost for perhaps slightly even less reward, but which sets a foundation which wouldn't otherwise exist. You don't have to get the backing of the Church Fathers or win over majorities, but simply being there and not being a douche in the process is beneficial. Especially when you have GOP officials basically telling Mormons to go fuck themselves. You don't necessarily have to be active in order to woo people, sometimes just being there is enough of an attraction.
GOP officials know they can tell Mormons to go fuck themselves because both parties know that the Democratic party is not a viable alternative for the rank and file, and especially for the leadership of the church (with a few exceptions such as the D-Udall and more or less Reid).
I just don't see one of the most uniformly Republican, socially and fiscally conservative groups that live almost exclusively in small non-swing states as someone that deserves much attention in that way, especially since I think the issue that would be most likely to split any non-trivial number of Western conservatives off from the GOP would be to alienate the much more important Hispanic demographic by attacking (unfairly) Mexican immigrants.
I just don't see one of the most uniformly Republican, socially and fiscally conservative groups that live almost exclusively in small non-swing states as someone that deserves much attention in that way, especially since I think the issue that would be most likely to split any non-trivial number of Western conservatives off from the GOP would be to alienate the much more important Hispanic demographic by attacking (unfairly) Mexican immigrants.
Not really. I mean, yes, draconian immigration reform would be the somewhat more immediate 'draw' but it's a long term loser and questionable short term. Pushing for a more libertarian philosophy may well serve to pay Western dividends. I'm thinking along the lines of Tester, and pushing for simplification of rules &c., as opposed to their elimination, with sensible conservation promotion and such which is more geared toward people who love the wilderness but may not care about the extinction of itchy algae. It's more of a long term approach, but that's pretty much the only way you win regions; you don't convince people in their 50's you go after those who might still hear you out and build off of that.
Yeah, that's basically all I can figure. Makes sense, I suppose.
The man's spent a decent chunk of his life in Taiwan and Singapore (the former as a Mormon missionary, the latter as ambassador under Bush I). Maybe he decided that he really prefers life in Southeast Asia.
Yeah, that's basically all I can figure. Makes sense, I suppose.
The man's spent a decent chunk of his life in Taiwan and Singapore (the former as a Mormon missionary, the latter as ambassador under Bush I). Maybe he decided that he really prefers life in Southeast Asia.
WTF.
Ok, it was clearly wrong of me to imply that China is part of Southeast Asia. But I'd like to point out that the Wiki page on Southeast Asia says that Taiwan is sometimes (though not always) considered part of Southeast Asia.
But I readily admit that I should have said "East Asia" rather than "Southeast Asia."
Oh, I agree that Hispanics are a better target, and you'll probably see Justice Sotomeyer as a result, but you can walk and chew gum.
Target. More like in-born constituency.
There's already no reason for Hispanics to vote Republican out west. They're a pretty secure Democratic base. It's just a matter of weak turnout. I mean, it's not hard to appeal to people when the other major party has spent forty years demonizing and exploiting you and your family/friends/race/history/culture/religion. Hispanics--Fuck it. Mexicans--have trended Dem in New Mexico since/because of FDR. In south Texas, Arizona, southern California, southern Colorado, Las Vegas metro it really is a matter of them voting Dem vs. voting for Republicans who hate Mexicans.
And by "them" I mean "us".
But the problem is that there is a lot of assumption that Mormons are too culuturally/religiously conservative to vote Democrat. People say the same thing about Mexicans/Hispanics. Not to mention the fact that out here we really do represent the broad spectrum of the Democratic Party. There are bastions of progressive liberalism and huge swaths of moderate and conservative Democrats often within the same cities or within miles of each other. Just as an example, the legislature in New Mexico is 2/3 Democrat but the leadership is comprised heavily of southern conservative members. And quite frankly there are people who are just as if not more conservative than your average or stereotypical Mormon in the party. So I don't see the problem, and maybe that's because I'm too close to it. But also as an aside, I know at least in NM the party/state chair is pursuing his own statewide version of the 50-state strategy with the counties, replacing useless party officials and beefing up local membership and leadership throughout the state even in the reddest of counties (which trend along the Texas border). So the fact of the matter is that if Obama is pursuing this strategy, it's not novel. Though I imagine the state parties would really love the help they could get from the President putting his stamp of approval on the strategy.
Posts
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Young'uns aren't the one with straps of cash, the church itself is. Although, I will grant you, that it's still worth trying to attract the demographic, for the votes.
There's only so far a demographic will support a party while being utterly ignored and ridiculed. They may be religious, but they aren't politically stupid, especially if Obama is making serious steps to respect them while their traditional party does the former.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Ironic considering this is the religion that still believes that the President is black because of the Mark of Cain.
Not in the Four Corners states.
That said, I always took the LDS and its members as being for non-interference given the history of the church and other inclinations I've noticed. But aside from that, I don't think it's a coincidence that Mo Udall was the first really prominent Mormon politician.
Agreed, but I still don't see the Mormon Church throwing it's cash behind Obama/Dems in general simply because they've been snubbed one too many times by the GOP.
Now, 8-12 years from now? Yeah, then I see some Mormons with cash who are of a mindset that social issues and politics aren't really needed to be entwined.
Simply withholding it from the Republicans would be more than enough.
This is probably true. My experiences with Mormons primarily brought me into contact with Salt Lake Valley Mormons (true red Republican) and the ones on the West Coast (not as psycho, but still pretty red Republican and still really quick to shun any Democratic Mormons). The other areas, it is reasonable that they moderate their social and economic positions the further they get away from temple square, only to contract politically once they extend past a certain point.
Point. Especially in the western states, where the Dems are gaining ground.
....the Dems are gaining ground out West, right? Like, not the Pacific states, the states just east of those.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thinking. Also, Mormons are Christians, so a better term would be Protestant/Evangelical part of the party vs. Mormon part.
The same way the Dems keep their spiritually opposed demographics aligned, by emphasizing the similarities (god is good, gays, abortion bad).
The Dems just have a much easier time with it. For the GOP, the Evangelicals tend to get to the mic too often to keep much more than a tenuous peace.
Yeah, that, pretty much.
Don't be so sure. McCain won Utah's 18-29 age bracket 62-33, statistically indistinguishable from the state at large. A majority (55%) of voters decided before September who they were voting for. McCain won the Mormon vote in Utah by 78% (and 75% of voters were Mormon). Its not going to happen
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Colorado/Arizona/New Mexico would be the targets, I'd think?
Seems like it'd be a hell of a lot easier to just ramp up your margins with Hispanics in those states, rather than go for Mormons.
I mean, considering that Hispanics are a much faster-growing voter demographic, and are predisposed to vote Democratic in large margins to begin with.
I think he's probably trying to promote his bi-partisan credentials and also pick off Huntsman as a prominent voice in the party -- promoting the death spiral. But I don't see reaching out to Mormons as a real strategy, especially in the southwest where Hispanics are a more powerful bloc in every state except Utah
There aren't a whole lot of Mormons there, not really. Nevada has the 4th most (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming) at 7%, Arizona is 5% and Colorado has 2%.
Mormons have a strong tendency to be both very conservative and strongly partisan (GOP). It makes no sense to go after them, especially in a region where there's a clear demographic to "woo" (Hispanics)
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Which, when you think about it, is probably the underlying reason that the LDS did dump that much money and effort into the Prop 8 race - it was an attempt to buy a seat at the table. And frankly, it probably worked.
That presumes he can chip away at Mormons. But we're talking about a constituency that only exists in large numbers in the most Republican/conservative states in the union. Obama is not going to win Utah and he's not going to win Idaho. He's not going to crack 40% in Utah, and he won't crack 45% in Idaho. There's exactly one competitive Congressional district in Utah and the Dems already have it. The Dems already control a non-competive district in Idaho (probably only for these two years) because the freshman Republican that held it was hated by even Republicans as unstable and combative. Why would Obama expend political capital trying to sway an isolated and small constituency in states he has no chance of winning? It'd be like the GOP trying to win over Massachusetts gays because Obama hasn't supported gay marriage.
But let's just pretend he can, or had to. They are Western white right wing to conservative by-and-large. What do you think is the one issue they are most unhappy with the national Republican party about? Mexican immigration. Can you see a problem there?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Utah - liberalism is coming for you.
You know, I've met quite a few mormons and they've all been some of my favorite people.
Although I don't know if the ones who make it out to New England are just a special subset or not.
Mormons are often very nice people. Scientologists can also be very nice people. That having been said, I wouldn't want an adherent of either to be president because I view adherence to either of those wacky belief systems as indicative of some serious personal and cognitive flaws.
Yeah but the 50 state is "compete in 50 states," not "spend resources uniformly." Dean doesn't expect to win in rural Utah or Idaho or Wyoming. The idea is to force Republicans to spend money in those districts, raise money in those districts, be in position to win if some scandal happens and to run appropriate candidates to the district. Utah-1 and Utah-3 are more Republican than any district held by a Democrat (Utah-2 is SLC and is held by a Dem despite overall R+15). Utah as a whole is more Republican than any district held by a Democrat.
Run someone? Sure. Encourage local party development? Sure. Have Obama direct his attention to wooing Mormons? When he couldn't pull 40% of the vote and has no chance of winning those three states in 2012? It just doesn't make sense when there are so many places to defend and better districts to focus on. There's two Dem districts in Illinois and Delaware at large that are held by Republicans and the WH has a lot more sway there than in places that voted 2-1 against them
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I guess I don't realize how appointing a moderate Republican governor who's a Mormon to overseas and not being a douche to their religion/adherents, while the GOP continues to, is expending a lot of resources on the subject. To me that seems a rather cheap deal if it pays any kinds of dividends over time.
I was talking about people's suggestions that Mormons should be targeted as a group to try to bring them over to the Democratic side because evangelical Protestants don't like them (see Romney). Huntsman wasn't tapped because he was Mormon, he was tapped because he's a Republican who could cause trouble and/or be more use serving his country than his party
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I guess I'm just not thinking of outreach in the same terms that you are, where it would be high cost for little reward. Rather I'm seeing it as little cost for perhaps slightly even less reward, but which sets a foundation which wouldn't otherwise exist. You don't have to get the backing of the Church Fathers or win over majorities, but simply being there and not being a douche in the process is beneficial. Especially when you have GOP officials basically telling Mormons to go fuck themselves. You don't necessarily have to be active in order to woo people, sometimes just being there is enough of an attraction.
And I don't see this as happening too much. Mormon culture is incredibly red, and until they stop practicing a culture that fits hand in hand with Republican values (such as women primarily being baby makers, extreme male-centrism, "classic moral values," etc.) this will continue.
GOP officials know they can tell Mormons to go fuck themselves because both parties know that the Democratic party is not a viable alternative for the rank and file, and especially for the leadership of the church (with a few exceptions such as the D-Udall and more or less Reid).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Not really. I mean, yes, draconian immigration reform would be the somewhat more immediate 'draw' but it's a long term loser and questionable short term. Pushing for a more libertarian philosophy may well serve to pay Western dividends. I'm thinking along the lines of Tester, and pushing for simplification of rules &c., as opposed to their elimination, with sensible conservation promotion and such which is more geared toward people who love the wilderness but may not care about the extinction of itchy algae. It's more of a long term approach, but that's pretty much the only way you win regions; you don't convince people in their 50's you go after those who might still hear you out and build off of that.
WTF.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Ok, it was clearly wrong of me to imply that China is part of Southeast Asia. But I'd like to point out that the Wiki page on Southeast Asia says that Taiwan is sometimes (though not always) considered part of Southeast Asia.
But I readily admit that I should have said "East Asia" rather than "Southeast Asia."
Target. More like in-born constituency.
There's already no reason for Hispanics to vote Republican out west. They're a pretty secure Democratic base. It's just a matter of weak turnout. I mean, it's not hard to appeal to people when the other major party has spent forty years demonizing and exploiting you and your family/friends/race/history/culture/religion. Hispanics--Fuck it. Mexicans--have trended Dem in New Mexico since/because of FDR. In south Texas, Arizona, southern California, southern Colorado, Las Vegas metro it really is a matter of them voting Dem vs. voting for Republicans who hate Mexicans.
And by "them" I mean "us".
But the problem is that there is a lot of assumption that Mormons are too culuturally/religiously conservative to vote Democrat. People say the same thing about Mexicans/Hispanics. Not to mention the fact that out here we really do represent the broad spectrum of the Democratic Party. There are bastions of progressive liberalism and huge swaths of moderate and conservative Democrats often within the same cities or within miles of each other. Just as an example, the legislature in New Mexico is 2/3 Democrat but the leadership is comprised heavily of southern conservative members. And quite frankly there are people who are just as if not more conservative than your average or stereotypical Mormon in the party. So I don't see the problem, and maybe that's because I'm too close to it. But also as an aside, I know at least in NM the party/state chair is pursuing his own statewide version of the 50-state strategy with the counties, replacing useless party officials and beefing up local membership and leadership throughout the state even in the reddest of counties (which trend along the Texas border). So the fact of the matter is that if Obama is pursuing this strategy, it's not novel. Though I imagine the state parties would really love the help they could get from the President putting his stamp of approval on the strategy.