Is Mitt Romney the Most Unpopular Likely Presidential Nominee Ever?

washunut said:

The bottom line of the topic is Romney and his religion. So inless you do not believe in any religion ( which is fine) then picking one to abuse when it acts like most major religions seems bigoted.

Click to expand...

Are you even a liberal? I don't know how any self proclaimed liberal would excuse the mormon church's bigotry. "Eh they all do it." That's not an excuse.

99percenter said:

All religions are bad. Donating to religion is not donating to charity. It is donating to hate.

Click to expand...

Well then we can be sure you're not donating, right?

I disagree with the "donating to hate", I've been giving money for years, to St. Judes, Feed the Children and several others. I've researched where the money goes and what % goes to administration and what % goes to actually feeding/helping childrern. I think if you've done pretty well in your life, you need to help others.

If Romney wants to sit and burn his money each month during a full moon, or flush it down a toliet, it's his to do with as he pleases.

99percenter said:

Religion leads to bigotry. Religion is the reason for most wars in history. The great chistropher hitchens ones said you wont see atheists fly planes into buildings. so true. Religion poisons everything. Some of the most racist intolerent man are driven by their religion.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say religion, in and of itself, leads to bigotry so much as a person's interpretation of their chosen religion leads to bigotry imo.

I may just be splitting hairs though as religion/personal interpretation of are more or less considered the same thing by most nowadays.

Billy the Kid said:

If Romney wants to sit and burn his money each month during a full moon, or flush it down a toliet, it's his to do with as he pleases.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But don't expect folks to line up to praise him for his money flushing. :shrug:

To be clear, though, I'm not saying that's what he's doing. I have no idea what the Mormon Church does with it's money ... other than build more Mormon churches. My point was mainly that most of Romney's charitable giving is *mandated* by the church.

99percenter said:

No but any religion who decides to focus its capital into intolerance instead of helping the poor and the sick is in effect bigoted. The Mormon church spent millions of dollars trying to push prop 8 through. That millions of dollars could have helped some poor people.

Click to expand...

Freedom of Choice, though. I don't personally align my views with LDS but I do know that there are several good things that the church does philanthropically and through mission work to help those in need. That they pour money into Prop 8 support goes against my personal feelings on religion/gay marriage but that doesn't make the good that they've done elsewhere with their donations any less good, imo.

99percenter said:

All religions are bad. Donating to religion is not donating to charity. It is donating to hate.

Click to expand...

Religion, and the various purposes it serves for those who choose to be religious, is not this black and white.

washunut said:

The bottom line of the topic is Romney and his religion. So inless you do not believe in any religion ( which is fine) then picking one to abuse when it acts like most major religions seems bigoted.

Click to expand...

Agree. Romney's religion is his business. His religion is no different than anybody elses religion. I was raised by an atheist. The difference between my atheist and those who hate religion, was he didn't care what you believed in as long as you left him out of it. He felt inorder to hate a religion you and to be vested in the belief. I really believe he would have taken me to a church had I asked him. So my tolerance for the whinning, so called, atheist today is low.

Thus I don't care what Romney's religion is, was or will be in the future. And he can do whatever he choose to do with his money.

Billy the Kid said:

Agree. Romney's religion is his business. His religion is no different than anybody elses religion. I was raised by an atheist. The difference between my atheist and those who hate religion, was he didn't care what you believed in as long as you left him out of it. He felt inorder to hate a religion you and to be vested in the belief. I really believe he would have taken me to a church had I asked him. So my tolerance for the whinning, so called, atheist today is low.

Thus I don't care what Romney's religion is, was or will be in the future. And he can do whatever he choose to do with his money.

Click to expand...

Well im no different than your father. What i dont like is that many people on the right want to inject religion in areas where it doesn't belong. When people want to teach false theories like creationism and intelligent design in a science class it goes to far. If you watched any of the republican debates, you noticed how every candidate says the separation of church and state clause doesnt protect people from religion but religion from the government. That is the most asinine thing i heard. The founders wanted a society where a person's religion or lack of doesn't matter. Thats why the said that no candidate should have go through a religious test to hold any public office. And you say atheists get whiny. How about Christians. They act like they are persecuted or that somehow there is a war on Christianity even though we have had 44 straight christian presidents. If you watch fox news, every year they have their annual war on christmas segment.

Gimmesometruth said:

Most, if not all of that is to the Mormon Church.

Click to expand...

Yes... the church... a charitable organization that goes around helping people...

LDS Humanitarian Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it was "Catholic Charities", would you have made the same claim? What's the big deal? Or are you trying to judge the man on his religion, too?

So, the question still stands... Romney donates 20% of his income to charity, what about you? None? Oooo but you type on here for causes... I guess you really do care more about people's problems than Romney :roll:

Gimmesometruth said:

LOL....good to see your defense of Romn....er....OBAMACARE!

I totally agree, people should be in the pool and not freeloading off the system. You made the case for the individual mandate, WELL DONE!!!!

Click to expand...

Despite your spin... the argument was not in relation to individual mandates, but rather pre-existing conditions, in particular Romney's comment that people cant just show up and expect insurance to cover things after not paying for them over time.

However, I've always been a proponent of CommonwealthCare... I'm on CommonwealthCare. Because of Mitt Romney, I have health insurance, by being able to pay into a subsidised pool. However, that's CommonwealthCare... and as designed, when Romney signed it, was an affordable bill, that saved tax payer money -- one of several major difference between ObamaCare and CommonwealthCare.

There are several major differences between Obama's ACA and CommonwealthCare, as constituted by Romney (not the adjustments that the liberals made to it afterwards), but I don't expect you'd take my word as anything other than partisan... so, here's a good article which shows a few of the major differences...
Five Differences Between RomneyCare and ObamaCare - Blogcritics Politics

But the following video is Mitt Romney being interviewed by an opponent of his (Bill O'Reilly), discussing the issues of healthcare, and international diplomacy... This is a pretty good showing of how Romney is up to discussing both articulately and effectively amidst a challenge...
Bill O'Reilly Interviews Mitt Romney on 04/12/10 - YouTube

99percenter said:

Well im no different than your father. What i dont like is that many people on the right want to inject religion in areas where it doesn't belong. When people want to teach false theories like creationism and intelligent design in a science class it goes to far. If you watched any of the republican debates, you noticed how every candidate says the separation of church and state clause doesnt protect people from religion but religion from the government. That is the most asinine thing i heard. The founders wanted a society where a person's religion or lack of doesn't matter. Thats why the said that no candidate should have go through a religious test to hold any public office. And you say atheists get whiny. How about Christians. They act like they are persecuted or that somehow there is a war on Christianity even though we have had 44 straight christian presidents. If you watch fox news, every year they have their annual war on christmas segment.

Click to expand...

Question. How can something you don't believe in bother you? If you believed you needed to worship dancing chickens and toads on Mondays, then Tuesday stood on a corner and preached on it, I'd just walk around you and tip my hat. I don't care what you believe in, it belongs to you and I could care less. It is not a part of my life. Now if you tried to force me to attend, then we'd have a problem.

Now I would have a problem if anyone tried to stop you from believing in dancing chickens and toads or told you you couldn't attend the C&T church or support the C&T church. If it isn't my money, it's not my worry.

As to the founders, they didn't want a mandated religion, like the Church of England.

I haven't heard any of the current candidates ask anyone to believe like they do.

And yes I think the current crop of atheists are whiny. My atheist was a real minority because it he was a non-believer before it became fashionable. Didn't yell, scream, picket, protest, call others names, he was his own man and he stood his ground.

It should be stated, that the Constitution is clear on the topic.

Constitution of the United States of America - Wikisource
In Article VI of the U.S. Constitution
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The document was written by those who were a collective of several different people, with different ideologies, many of who were the descendents of or recent emigrants from areas where they were persecuted for their religious beliefs. They intentionally never recognized an official religion, and intentionally never declared religion as the basis for any law, or for any service...

I don't care what your feelings are on Evangelical Christians, Pentacostal Christians, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodoxians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Branch Dividians, Scientologists, etc. You are entitled to those opinions by the Bill of Rights, those protected unabolishable ammendments to this Consistution as well.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikisource
"Article the third ...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Anyone who considers themself an American, who would bring religious scruitiny into politics should be consider whether or not they should be guilt of treason against this Republic.

99percenter said:

Well im no different than your father. What i dont like is that many people on the right want to inject religion in areas where it doesn't belong.

Click to expand...

Although the majority of these people seem to fall on the far right, I wouldn't characterize them on a side of the political sphere but more so as a portion of the electorate that believes it is impossible to have government without religion. Keeping the previous phrase in mind, they think their religious beliefs should be the religion at the forefront of influencing government. This isn't a Mormon issue, as I'm sure there are plenty of Lutherans, Methodists, Jews, Baptists, Greek Orthodox, etc. that feel the same way. It is as much a struggle for power as it is for the forwarding of certain views themselves.

99percenter said:

When people want to teach false theories like creationism and intelligent design in a science class it goes to far. If you watched any of the republican debates, you noticed how every candidate says the separation of church and state clause doesnt protect people from religion but religion from the government. That is the most asinine thing i heard.

Click to expand...

I also agree that creationism is something that should be kept of science class. As should all topics not relating to actual science, as creationism is not something that can be taught scientifically. If a school has a theology course, fine. That's appropriate. If someone wants creationism taught to their children as an alternative to evolution, though, they should enroll their child in a religiously-affiliated school that would teach it as such.

beerftw said:

when they are in the wrong,so now liberals are allowed to determine which religions are right?

Click to expand...

Gimme a freakin' break... the very foundation of EVERY religion forces those who follow it to decide all others are wrong.

IndepCentristMA said:

Yes... the church... a charitable organization that goes around helping people...

LDS Humanitarian Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it was "Catholic Charities", would you have made the same claim? What's the big deal? Or are you trying to judge the man on his religion, too?

So, the question still stands... Romney donates 20% of his income to charity, what about you? None? Oooo but you type on here for causes... I guess you really do care more about people's problems than Romney :roll:

Click to expand...

First, Romney donates @ 16% of AGI, not 20%. If you had read my other posts, you would know "my beef" with most of those funds going to his church, the contributions are not going to broad based secular organizations and as already pointed out, he is only going @ 6% above what he is commanded to do.

Despite your spin... the argument was not in relation to individual mandates, but rather pre-existing conditions, in particular Romney's comment that people cant just show up and expect insurance to cover things after not paying for them over time.

However, I've always been a proponent of CommonwealthCare... I'm on CommonwealthCare. Because of Mitt Romney, I have health insurance, by being able to pay into a subsidised pool. However, that's CommonwealthCare... and as designed, when Romney signed it, was an affordable bill, that saved tax payer money -- one of several major difference between ObamaCare and CommonwealthCare.

There are several major differences between Obama's ACA and CommonwealthCare, as constituted by Romney (not the adjustments that the liberals made to it afterwards), but I don't expect you'd take my word as anything other than partisan... so, here's a good article which shows a few of the major differences...
Five Differences Between RomneyCare and ObamaCare - Blogcritics Politics

Click to expand...

You continue to promote the Heritage Fund/Romney/ObamaCare plan, and your link only points out the differences in the procedure of the passage of the bills (and that one is state vs fed..big duh), not differences in the GUTS of the bills.

Gimmesometruth said:

First, Romney donates @ 16% of AGI, not 20%. If you had read my other posts, you would know "my beef" with most of those funds going to his church, the contributions are not going to broad based secular organizations and as already pointed out, he is only going @ 6% above what he is commanded to do.

Click to expand...

So in other words... you donate a big fat ZERO...

Romney donated his entire inheritance from his father... It wasn't 20% on last year's tax returns, it's 20% of his total grossed income... but instead, you say "he's only going 6% above what he's commanded to do"... So he paid 14.7% in taxes, 16.4%, and I'm sure other taxes along the way, as well...

You, on the other hand, havent disclosed a thing, and more than likely havent donated a significant portion of your income to charity...

Gimmesometruth said:

You continue to promote the Heritage Fund/Romney/ObamaCare plan, and your link only points out the differences in the procedure of the passage of the bills (and that one is state vs fed..big duh), not differences in the GUTS of the bills.

Click to expand...

A major part of what's wrong with ObamaCare is the procedure about it... how partisan it was, ignoring consideration from the other side... The Heritage Fund/Romney/MA Legilature plan came about by everyone coming together and putting their input into it... ObamaCare was shoved down everyone's throats... It was also done at the federal level, and not the state level, which is a huge difference... It was specifically designed to straighten out the healthcare situation in MA, not the nation...

However, there are also major difference with the guts of the plan... the guts of the plan in MA was under 100 pages... the guts of the plan in Washington were 2000 pages... That's because the MA plan was far more limited in scope, and meant to base the coverage on simply getting MA workers to chose their own healthcare plan, and to get those who lacked insurance to chose from a collective of private run pools, which they could pay into at subsidized rates... Obama's plan has far more coverages, and single payer, rather than collective... single payer plans are the most expensive ones... most of the cheap private carries pool coverage... there are also more advisory boards in the federal plan... which has made the cost of the overall plan dwarf its scope and dwarf even the administrations estimates... which speaks to the largest difference of them all.... CommonwealthCare saved taxpayers money, and ObamaCare is increasing spending, in ways we cant afford...

Romney can't beat Obama and he knows it. The press is going to tear him apart.
It's going to be like the last election.

Darroll said:

Romney can't beat Obama and he knows it. The press is going to tear him apart.
It's going to be like the last election.

Click to expand...

Where the press tore into both candidates, and in the end, more independents went Obama's way to elect the first black president, recognizing McCain's choice of a VP candidate as questionable?

Hmm... So this election both candidates will get torn apart by the press, more independents will vote for Romney, the first Mormon president, and the first president of Mexican decent, and will recognize Obama's VP choice of Biden as questionable?

A more unambiguously favorable precedent for Republicans is that of Ronald Reagan. Mr. Nyhan reports that at this point in 1979, Mr. Reagan’s ratings were 38 percent favorable, against 39 percent unfavorable. However, his favorability ratings were fairly strong by mid-summer 1980, and he soundly defeated Jimmy Carter later that year.

Click to expand...

What Early Polls on Presidential Candidates Tell Us - NYTimes.com

Yeah sure whatever.

oooo the ny times has an article against the republican candidate?

OpportunityCost said:

What Early Polls on Presidential Candidates Tell Us - NYTimes.com

Yeah sure whatever.

Click to expand...

"The table below compares favorability ratings for presidential candidates in what I call the ‘very early’ period — the first six months of the year before the presidential election — to the ‘post-primary’ period. The ‘post-primary’ period consists of all favorability polls conducted from 30 days after the Iowa caucus until the day before the candidate’s nominating convention — roughly from February or March of the election year through July or August. In cases where there were not at least three polls conducted during this period, I included polls from immediately after the Iowa caucuses (without the 30-day buffer zone) as well. (Unfortunately, several candidates were not polled at all after the Iowa caucuses and had to be eliminated from the study.) For candidates who won their party’s nomination, I also include favorability ratings from what I call the ‘very late’ period — the final three weeks before the November election. All data, as in the original study, is taken from PollingReport.com and consists of the last three presidential elections."


Sounds like a decent selection of Data.... So you know what a good thing to do would be... let's compare the same data from February-March to July-August, and then August-November... After those candidates won their nomination... with the numbers we have on Romney from Jan-March... long before he has his party's nomination.... ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


"That is not a terribly strong correlation by any means, and the number might change some if the study covered more years and included candidates like Mr. Dole and Mr. Reagan. "

So let's base an article off of it...

"In contrast, Mr. Nyhan has written that early primary polls “don’t matter” and that they are “useless” — and several other bloggers have echoed these statements. That just isn’t true. Yes, as a first approximation, the rule of thumb “don’t pay much attention to early primary polls” is probably better than “pay a lot of attention to early primary polls,” given the way that the media tends to overrate their importance. But Mr. Nyhan’s statement is hyperbolic."

So basically he is just saying that his opponents comments that refute the claim are just "hyperbole"... heck he might as well be a debatepolitics liberal hack... they use that lame accusation all the time, too...

"Something for Republican strategists to worry about? Sure, if they enjoy worrying. But probably not something for them to lose any sleep over until and unless they are on the verge of nominating one of their more unpopular alternatives."

Don't worry... no one loses sleep about any statement by liberals in the NY Times...


Oh, and how'd that work out for Reagan??? I seem to remember him winning two giant elections including taking an economic stalwart out in 80 winning all but 7 small states (including Carter's GA) by 489-49 delegates and sweeping every state other than Mondale's in 84...

Is this you?

The article and those in conjunction with it (Silver's previous article and those in response by Nyhan) aren't very significant by any means but neither him nor Nyhan really make any strong points for or against the argument and Silver argues both pro and con. I'm sure your inability to comprehend what is being written instead of what you want to see being written (Specter is a sitting senator, anyone?) has nothing to do with this.