How well does the Bloggernacle represent Mormonism Politically?
There was a recent Sunstone Symposium session on how well Mormonism is represented by the Bloggernacle. I was brainstorming for empirical ways to test this.
Mainstream Mormonism is purportedly 88% Republican.
One suggestion, Matt.
We probably ought to expand our definition of mainstream Mormonism beyond the U.S. In Latin America and Europe, many members vote for parties on the Left, including communists. Those members are every bit as mainstream as you and I.
Comment by Mark IV — August 26, 2007 @ 12:03 am
What if you’re neither democrat or republican, but a person who actually looks at individual candidates and trys to pick the best one? I’m definately leaning toward Republican on issues of abortion and family, but definately more Democrat on most other issues. Really, I don’t feel there is a party that reflects the values of mainstream LDS think.
Comment by M. Ryan Taylor — August 26, 2007 @ 2:04 am
good comments gentlemen. I added an “other” category to take your thoughts into account, and I am currently uncertain if the 88% of Mormons above is Utah Mormons or what… I’ll have to dig at where I got that stat from and find out.
Comment by Matt W. — August 26, 2007 @ 5:33 am
You’ll have to break it down better than just Republican-Democrat.
For instance, Republicans are not necessarily conservatives. And then there are so many different areas of politics – morality, foreign policy, fiscal policy, business, human rights etc. The views in each are so much more diverse than “conservative-progressive.”
Comment by Seth R. — August 26, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Just stay away from my kids, all of you.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 26, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Lol Steve. Niiice.
Comment by Geoff J — August 26, 2007 @ 11:01 am
All,
I had to temporarily yank the poll. It was jacking up the site.
Comment by Geoff J — August 26, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Matt,
What Mark said. Sorry to be a pedant, but the mainstream Mormons in the UK who vote Labour, or Conservative, or Liberal, are secure in their mainstreamness.
But I take your point.
Comment by Ronan — August 26, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Then you’re disenfranchised, if you live in a state with a closed Primary.
Many of us have to choose to affiliate with one party or another to have any say as to who runs.
Comment by Naismith — August 26, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
In terms of posts I think liberal Mormons tend to have a bigger voice. I think in terms of readers I suspect it’s much more balanced.
Part of the problem is Iraq and Bush. Yet, frankly, even a lot of conservatives aren’t happy with him. This brings out a lot of bad vibes and I think many just don’t want to discuss politics anymore because of it.
Comment by Clark — August 26, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
I know Clark. Bush has really taken a lot of the fun out of political debate. I used to like it a lot more than I do today. You just get such a bitter taste these days whenever you think about the White House. Kind of a hopeless sick feeling. I hope things will recover in a couple years. It’s really hard to imagine just about anyone stinking up the room as much as Bush has.
Comment by Seth R. — August 26, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Alright, the poll is back! We’ll keep our eye on it to be sure it doesn’t mess up the site…
Comment by Geoff J — August 26, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
It’s funny Seth. With “neo-con” becoming a pejorative even for Republicans as I researched it I found a lot I liked. Unfortunately the worse heritage of Bush is that neo-con as a movement is dead. No one will ever really take it seriously again. This is largely because Bush was a convert to a few of the ideas and implemented them so poorly.
Not to derail this into a political thread. But sometimes I feel so upset at the current situation I almost want Clinton to win the election since it seems like, in practice, her foreign policy isn’t that different from Bush’s stated aims and practices. Yet she’ll have the support of Democrats (even the “Net Roots” folks probably). She’ll probably be far more competent. This, despite really, really not liking Clinton.
Comment by Clark — August 26, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Interesting idea, party affiliation.
I worked on it a little when I studied Poli Sci at BYU. One of my professors wrote a book about the myth of the independent voter.
So, the guy who said
is what a lot of people think they are (including my husband), independent. The way I understand the myth is that people who claim to be independent, will usually “lean” to one party or another. Then when tracking their voting records, the “leaners” are more likely than “weak” partisans to vote for their party of choice.
It’s an interesting theory, though I don’t know if there’s been more research done lately. I am obviously not an expert, but I think about the myth of the independent voter every time I read about people who claim to be aloof from our party system.
Comment by jessawhy — August 26, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
Clark, I’m inclined to agree with you about the benefits of Clinton winning the election. Remember, less than a year ago (October, 2006) in an interview with the NY Post, she re-affirmed her vote for supporting the Iraq war, her support for extraordinary rendition, her support for “extreme interrogation techniques”, the whole schmeer. So I don’t think the situation in Iraq would look any different now if she had been elected instead of Bush. If she becomes president, a large part of the electorate will be forced to realize that there is more to policy-making than standing on the sidelines yelling “stupid!” and “evil!”.
Comment by Mark IV — August 27, 2007 @ 5:45 am
I am thoroughly disgusted with both parties. The Democrats disgust me because of what they stand for. The Republicans disgust me for failing to stand for what they claim to stand for.
Comment by V the K — August 27, 2007 @ 6:43 am
Ok, a couple things.
1. I did put an other option Ronan. Since I don’t have any stats on the general voting habits or right/left stance of any LDS people outside the US, why don’t you get your EMSA buddies to whip something up, so I can have something to go againsts.
Also, I should not that it’s a pretty mixed bag as far as my stat aboe goes for what percent of mainstream mormonism is republican. The EOM had it at 69%. The 88% number above turned out to be bogus, and I am going to change it. So, while I can’t say that the Bloggernacle is politically exactly like mainstream mormonism in the Utah Mormon vein, it is only off by 10%…
Maybe I should have posted a comment on whether they liked GWB or not.
Comment by Matt W. — August 27, 2007 @ 7:02 am
Talk about an identity crisis. My voter registration still says republican, but I have voted a straight democratic ticket for the last two national elections.
Perhaps to internationalize the poll, the choices should simply be left, center-left, center-right, right.
Comment by lief — August 27, 2007 @ 10:42 am
We probably ought to expand our definition of mainstream Mormonism beyond the U.S. In Latin America and Europe, many members vote for parties on the Left, including communists.
The bloggernacle is, sadly, largely an American phenom.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — August 27, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
I’m a registered Republican who votes for every Libertarian she can (and can stomach,) and actually only voted for Republicans in 2 out of the (I think) 8 or 9 races they were running in during the last election. And I was very unhappy to only have the choices I did have (incumbent I can’t stand versus challenger I can’t stand, from two state parties I can’t stand.) The only Republican currently representing me that I like is my Congressman, and his views are closer to the Libertarian and Constitution parties than Republican or Democrat.
On the other hand, after my visit to Utah, I might not vote for anyone who runs for anything in SLC. Especially not the guy who thinks he’s Lance Armstrong — and what is up with never putting party ID on those ads, anyway?
Comment by Sarah — September 3, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
Comment by Idetrorce — December 15, 2007 @ 6:02 am