After Romney's runaway victory in Nevada (polls had him up by 15%, not the 40% he achieved!!!), the press wasted no time discounting the win as resulting from the high Mormon population. There are many problems with this, both in terms of bigotry and fact.
1. Even granting that his enormous win was due to Mormon support, how does that justify discounting the win? Huckabee's win in Iowa, due solely to evangelical support, garnered him plenty of praise without the asterisk.
2. There aren't that many Mormons in Nevada. It's between 7% and 15% depending on the source.
3. I've heard that 25% of caucus goers were Mormon, and over 90% of them supported Mitt. So, if we take away 25% from Mitt's total, where does that leave us? STILL 15% AHEAD OF HIS NEAREST RIVAL! Sprinkle that 25% around evenly among the other candidates and he still wins readily. I mean, this is just ridiculous!
4. Mitt won among every demographic, so lets leave the Mormon card out of it. Bringing up repeatedly serves only to remind voters that religion has been an issue when it shouldn't be. But, I'm afraid that's exactly the point. We already know the reason people rake Mitt over the coals for missteps that get a blind eye in the other candidates is because of his religion. So, it's not surprising the anti-Romney media will persistently bring it up.
But, again. America doesn't need the press to tell them who to elect. They've chosen Romney so far, and no amount of obfuscation can take that away.
No comments:
Post a Comment