THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I don’t have the data, but I think I remember a similar situation with blacks and Barack Obama, at least in one state.  Could we then argue that blacks are not free-thinkers either.

90% votes happen all the time—at the precinct level, usually in urban precincts voting for whatever idiot Democrat is running against the feckless Republican of the week.  (After what the GOP’s spent the past half-century doing to US cities and to the mostly less-well-off folks who live in them, I can hardly blame ‘em.  Can you?)

90% at the state level is exceptional.  Still, on Utah and Romney, come on.  I may not dig some of their odder beliefs, but Mormons get the short end of various public sticks.  If they want to vote for their native son, let ‘em.

Interesting, amongst the Mormon voters in the Republican primary exit polls (90% of total polled) in Utah, Romney got 94% of the vote, Paul and McCain got 3% each, and Huckabee got 0%.  I guess that they remember that most conservative evangelical churches see Mormonism as a cult.  Of Republicans asked “How much does it matter to you that a candidate shares your religious beliefs?”:

Yet when asked “Which ONE of these four candidate qualities mattered most in deciding how you voted today?”, 57% said “Shares my values”.

In Alabama, 72% of whites voted for Clinton and 84% of blacks voted for Obama.  Gender played no part as both genders voted 41% Clinton and 57% Obama.

Numbers come from MSNBC and you can look at all their polls here.

SirKodiak, #3:
Case-in-point why any person of sane mind should ignore any and all polls.  Wisdom of the crowds is fantastic if and only if people can be honest with themselves, otherwise the results are irrelevant.

and what’s your point?
vr, Xei

Ken,

Barack had a huge amount of black support in South Carloina-- over 70% IIRC.

Alabama was the number I was looking for. Obviously there is a connection between being Mormon and voting for Romney. I object to MGL making statements of that nature (that perhaps this gives support to a theory that Mormons are brainwashed/cult) while ignoring other examples. Would he imply the same claim that the 89% of black men in Alabama who voted for Obama are also brainwashed and blindly follow? Or the 79% of blacks in South Carolina, or the 72% of whites in Alabama?

I would go with “biased” as the term, rather than brainwashed or blinded.  We all have biases of course… that’s why we are human (except for those of us still living in basements with our computers).  The question is the extent to which our biases influence our decisions.

I would also think it’s more acceptable for a black person to be biased toward a black leader, given the US history toward black people.  Mormons may not get a fair shake, nor women in the past, but that pales in comparison to what blacks have endured.

Why does it seem to come as surprise to MGL that Mormons will tend to vote for Romney. I mean, that’s how the world works at present. The Mormons (as a group, of course) are no different than the Blacks, the Jews (MGL’s own personal individuality notwithstanding), the Women, the Muslims, the evangelical Christians, the Hispanics, and on and on. Even an ‘integrated, white, non-accented’ candidate like Giuliani will get many more votes from Americans of Italian descent, I would wager.

But my guess is that eventually, most of this favoritism will disappear in this country. The reason is--it doesn’t work (in the sense of producing an optimal result). Plus, there continues to be increased mixing (intermarriage) among these groups, which will ensure that the coming generations give less of a sh*t about the old ethnic stuff.

Some people decry this, that old cultural values and characteristics will be lost in in the mix. I say, f*ck those things, let them go. “Stop livin’ in the past, man...”

I suppose I can say the same thing about blacks voting for Obama or whites for the white candidate.  I am not really surprised at the Utah results, especially knowing what I know about Mormons (I don’t mean that in a perjorative sense).

It simply occurred to me that if 90% of any particular “class” of persons votes for one candidate, there can’t be much free thinking going on in that class.  Perhaps that is true of almost everyone who votes, and it is just not that evident most of the time.

My guess is that 95% (probably closer to 99% - anyone have that number?) or more of the Mormons voted for Romney.  Surely if those Mormon voters were truly interested in voting for the “best candidate,” rather than simply the candidate who shares the same religion, more than 1% or 5% (or whatever the number is) would have voted for another candidate.

When I am contemplating whom to vote for, one of the last things on my mind is their religion or any other “class” they happen to belong to, other than with respect to how that class relates to their values (I realize that those things are related)…

You clearly biased MGL. No doubt about that.

What you fail to mention is Romney has also worked on the Olympics that were in Utah. People remember that. When a huge event like the Olympics are in your home state, and the success is credited to the guy that is now running for president, that will lead to many votes. That does have a huge importance. Not everyone is Morman, and there is a reason why the non-Mormans voted for him.

Another thing is that Huckabee insulted the Mormans, saying they worshiped the devil. That will obviously lead some hatred towards Huckabee. If someone insulted your religion then you would be mad. (I’m athiest btw).

Obviously people are biased, but your hatred for the republicans has no bias, right? Huckabee got the evangelical vote everywhere, especially the South. Clinton gets hispanics by a huge majority. Obama gets blacks by a huge majority. Mormans have some of the smallest population groups, and to single them out shows some hatred.

#11 really cuts to the chase.  Mormons tend to be conservative, more so than the average GOP voter.  Huckabee raised aspersions about Mormonism throughout the campaign, especially in Iowa.  If I was a Mormon, I would write him off for that alone.

That leaves a choice between Mitt and McCain.  McCain is not popular with conservatives, and since Mormon voters tend to be more conservative than the average GOP voter, you have another big impetus towards Mitt.  Nor is McCain particularly popular in Utah--in the 2000 primary, he drew just 14%, versus 63% for Bush and 21% for Alan Keyes, his highest percentage of any state.  Add in a home state bonus, which most national candidates usually get, and you have a perfect storm for massive vote totals.

I also think that it is a mistake to rag on a group’s “free thought” when discussing a group that has already freely made a choice that has landed them in that group.  If in the general election 90% of Dems voted for Obama (or Hillary, whoever the nominee is), it would be silly to say “Wow, they’re not free thinkers”, since the group is defined by how people think and how they voluntarily identify themselves.

Yes, you got me.  I am biased (what is a “biased person” by the way?  How about a “non-biased” person?) and I hate Republicans.

#10/MGL

According to the exit polls:
94% of Utah Mormons voting in the Republican race voted for Romney (they account for 90% of the vote).

Of the Utah Mormons voting in the Democratic race, 61% voted for Obama and 33% for Clinton (they accounted for 37% of the vote).

In Nevada, Romney got 95% of the Republican Mormon vote and they accounted for 26% of the vote in the Republican primary.

In the Nevada Democratic race, Obama got 83% of the black vote.

Seriously, I really didn’t mean anything by it.  I just thought it was interesting.  I would think that 94 and 95% is probably the highest ever of any one “group” voting for a candidate who belongs to the same “group,” other than human being/human being I suppose.  I happen to like the Mormon people I know and have met (especialluy with regard to the manner in which they value their families and their service to one another and to the community), although I did not care for Romney as a candidate.  Do I think that Mormonism is a goofy friggin’ religion?  Sure.  But I think that about all religions.  Again, it would barely even occur to me to consider someone’s race, religion, or what have you, in assessing their competency or qualifications for office.

And although I am a registered Democrat (really an independent), I didn’t much mind many of the Republican candidates this year (as opposed to in prior years), including McCain, Paul, and Huckabee, although I would obviously disagree with them on several fundamental issues.

As well, I don’t much care for Clinton as I don’t particularly like candidates that I preceive as being dishonest.  Of course I don’t really know that she is or isn’t, especially as compared to any other candidate.  Not to mention the fact that calling someone honest or dishonest makes about as much sense as calling someone biased or unbiased.  All of us are honest with some things and not so honest with other things.  And I suppose we are all biased by definition, althought that obviously depends on to what is being referred, if I may avoid ending this post on a preposition.

I think having a 95% voting bloc of any group is far more significant than 85%.  It’s not that they are both high.  One is absurdly high.

While Patriot makes a good case for the perfect storm in Utah, it doesn’t seem so perfect in light of Kodiak’s data in Nevada.

Bill Clinton was referred to as the first black president, and Hillary is obviously getting a huge benefit there.  If she didn’t, Obama would probably also get 95% of the black vote.  This is what happens when you have a disenfranchised group suddenly on the cusp of power.  You exaggerate the good things about Obama (or Romney) and reduce the bad stuff.

This is just like an MVP vote: if Rollins and Wright are close, you might as well use the Phillies run and Mets collapse as the tiebreaker.

I think there is a big difference between voting for a (select group here) candidate for (select office here), and the first-ever (select group here) legitimate candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Really, the incredible thing about this election is that we’ve had the first ever truly legitimate female, African-American, and Mormon candidates for the most powerful office in the world.  And if you’re a member of one of those groups, you’re not only voting for that candidate, you’re also voting to kill old stereotypes about your group, and give it some powerful legitimacy.

I agree with your point, but I think it would still have to be a disenfranchised group though. 

Suppose that the constitution were to allow foreign-born US Citizens to run for president.  I don’t think that Canada-born US Citizens would vote at a 95% clip for Charles Bronfman, nor Austria-born US Citizens would vote at that high level for the Presidentator. 

Would 95% of jews vote for Joe Liebermann?  I don’t think so, since jews aren’t disenfranchised here.  But, if he were to run in Palestine, the jews there would likely vote for him at that level.

I think there is a large difference between the black vote and Mormon vote.  Mormons have not been persecuted in this country (to any extent) and there really is no “statement” to be made.

The 95% simply represents the fact that Mormons are extremely “clanish”.

Let’s say that you are LDS (Mormon), you research the candidates, and you like McCain’s stances on the issues better than Romney’s.  A perfectly reasonable scenario, I would think.  What happens?  Apparently, you still vote for Romney or you never research the candidates and their stances in the first place.  Surely if lots of Mormons did research the candidates, OR if they felt free to vote for whomever they wantded, more than 5% would have voted for another candidate.

Also, what is it that a Mormon candidate is going to do for you if you are Mormon?  I assume that Mormons are pro-life, anti-same sex marriage, in favor of conservative as opposed to “activist” judges and justices, etc.  Most of the Republican candidates are too.

I can easily see blacks voting overwhelmingly for a black candidate (yet it won’t be 95%) because there are all kinds of things that a black President can do to help blacks in America that a white one can’t or won’t, at least as preceived by a black person (whose perception I can only guess at of course).

Let’s say that Lieberman or some other Jewish person were running for Pres or in the primaries.  While there has never been a Jewish President of course, and it would be somewhat of a big deal (sadly), I would be suprised if more than 80% of Jewish prople voted for him in a primary or general election.

I think this is further complicated by the fact that Obama isn’t really “black” other than by appearance. I’m not trying to start any fights, but just pointing out that his heritage does not include slavery and the fallout of it. Plenty of “real blacks” are quite aware of this and this affects his support level among them.

On the other hand, Mitt’s Mormon creditials AFAIK, 100%. So comparing him to Obama is not apples to apples.

It’s funny I was just wondering about stats and politics. I was wondering if there’s a reversion to the mean WRT second presidential terms. They always seem to be worse. Bad first termers tend not to get a second chance. I have a strong feeling that how good a president is perceived to be has a lot to do with luck and not skill.

I don’t think Bill Clinton’s heritage included slavery, but that didn’t stop him from being annointed the first black president.  It’s not what you’ve been through, it’s what you’re going to deliver.

Mormons have not been persecuted in this country (to any extent)

That statement is false.  They have been persecuted in this country.  It’s well documented history, though much less now then in the past.

More importantly, many Mormons feel persecuted, in the past and now.  You can google ‘Mormon Persecution’ and find plenty of references to persecution both today and in the past.  Some would argue that they want to feel persecuted as this strengthens their beliefs.  I lived with a Mormon for a year and this subject came up often.  “The True Church will be prosecuted” comes up often.  So, regardless of how much they are persecuted today (which is up for debate), many consider themselves persecuted and that is what matters.  The feeling of persecution brings them closer.

On a second note, to assume that many people of any group actually do research, or that many that do some research actually allow the research to influence their initial opinion, is perilous at best.  It is amazing how ‘willingly ignorant’ the general public will remain about politics, history, and even geography.  That is why hot button topics and party stances rule the day.  Many people do not have thought out, educated opinions; they just have opinions.

Finally, just keep in mind that it was a high percentage of the Mormons that voted in the Republican primary that voted for Romney.  Their were still plenty of Mormons that voted in the Democratic primary.

I didn’t read this thread, but I think your whole premise is flawed.

Utah is a somewhat unique situation where the population is particularly homogeneous in terms of religion/culture/opinions. Why do you care that these people who would support Romney all live in the same state?

Is it really any different than if 89% of CEOs supported a particular candidate, or 89% of women over 55, etc? Being concerned because of these people that share an opinion all living in the same place is odd to me, but maybe I missed the point.