After watching the NV Senate debate earlier in the week, I recalled that Harry Reid always has very close reelection results---he has never won by a large margin, and it got me wondering whether the difference between victory and defeat lies to some degree with the roughly 10% of Nevadans who are (per TSCC claims) LDS. I.e., without at least a portion of that demographic breaking with the usual LDS conservatism, I wonder if his string of close victories is due in some or large part to LDS residents.

Any of you in Nevada care to chime in? Does Harry enjoy at least some degree of LDS support (compared to say Utah) because he's one of them? Or are Nevada Mormons in general less conservative than Utah Mormons? I'd be particularly interested in your observations regarding whether Nevada Mormons tend to vote more for Democrats than Utah Mormons, even if they still tend to support Republicans, or whether you think they are strongly GOP and make an exception for priesthood-holder Harry Reid.

NV Mormons are conservative. I think Reid is not liked by them generally speaking. I also believe that some will vote for him simply due to his religion. My guess is that ANGLE will win. She has some hesitant speech at times but gets her message out. He has just done too much harm, talks in drone like fashion and is boring to listen to, has done next to nothing to improve our unemployment- only helped MGM due to their support of him, and he is so wealthy it stinks. But he talks about those who have money as though he has little.

Angle is more of an average person in the eyes of most and that is appealing. He has painted her as extreme and she is not. No one agrees with each candidate on all issues, but seriously Reid is only getting support from clueless teachers ( smart ones see through him), some union folks, the poorer classes and wealthy Dems in my opinion. I expect a huge victory for Angle....maybe a 6 point victory....she cleaned his clock in the debate....my opinion, but she held her head up high throughout and he kept looking down and when it came time for final comments he said "Oh I need to find my notes"and he fumbled looking for them. REALLY?

Especially all those elderly Nevadans will love her stance that Social Security and Medicare an unconstitutional.

Angle is viewed by Republicans in Nevada as a right-wing nut. The head of the Nevada Republicans in the state legislature endorsed Reid.

My LDS family members in Las Vegas have all adopted the "anyone but Harry Reid" outlook.

In Europe, we are amazed that know-nothings like Angle can even run as candidates, let alone have a chance. In view of Angle's nutty funny-mentalist Christian evangelical, anti-Mormon background, it is even more shocking that a TBM could ever vote for such a whackjob. I suppose nutty politics trumps nutty religion there. It is moments like these that make me glad I live in Europe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2010 11:10AM by tapirbackrider.

Of course, I don't want this to evolve into a political discussion in contravention of board rules. I guess another way to phrase my question was, have NV Mormons been slightly less Republican in their voting habits (even by 5 or 10% less Republican) when Reid was on the ballot, allowing him to win with his customary 1-2% margin of victory? Stated another way, would a non-LDS Democratic candidate with identical positions also have won, or did the LDS vote---while mostly against him---keep putting Harry over the top? Bear in mind, Reid as Senate Majority Leader is the highest-ranking Mormon politician ever.

Bloc voting by a group with only 5-10% of the population can tip elections. You'd expect most elective offices in Utah to be held by Mormons, but the case that always amazes me is Arizona. With a perhaps 6-7% LDS population, TSCC has a disproportionate share of leaders in the legislature (majority leader, etc.), some from Phoenix's East Valley, and some from the little Mormon towns in eastern Arizona. If a group with 8% of the population votes as a bloc for an LDS candidate, then the opposing candidate must win 51/92 of the remaining, non-LDS votes (55% of the non-LDS votes) to reach 51%. So when you win a contest by 1% statewide, even a small shift in a bloc that normally would vote against a Democrat might have made the difference (i.e. if Reid pulled 30% of LDS votes instead of <5%).

There is ample evidence that Mormons vote in blocs when one of their own is on the ballot. In the 2008 election cycle, CNN posted exit polls after primaries and caucuses, which were stratified by age, income, race, and religion. In the case of Mormons, only three states listed by CNN (UT, AZ, NV) had large enough LDS populations to be statistically significant to be included in religious stats, but in those three states, the LDS GOP primary/caucus vote went >95% for Mitt, even in contests he lost (e.g. McCain obviously won in AZ, but the Mormons backed Mitt 95%----the LDS vote did not in any way mirror the statewide GOP results).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2010 11:11AM by PtLoma.

I went to a caucus or whatever it was in '08 and yes indeed they were there in full force voting for Mitt. Ours was at a high school....where maybe 15% of the kids were Mormon. I think over half the voting age attendees that day were Mormon and he won overwhelmingly. But Mitt is not Reid.....they would surely vote for the Republican.

Given the high SAHM LDS population, caucuses I think inflate the LDS presence, because these meetings are often held on weekdays when normal working folks cannot participate. It skews toward retirees and SAHMs. So I would not be surprised if your caucus was top-heavy with LDS SAHMs and retirees. I think the primary election system is more fair/representative, because those with time to vote---but not hours for a caucus---are not disenfranchised.

The point about LDS bloc voting, even in a GOP caucus or primary, is still valid as far as expanding the bloc's influence relative to its numbers. Had Mitt not been running in say AZ, the LDS GOP vote would have been scattered among the other candidates (maybe not Huckabee, but certainly McCain and others who were not openly hostile to Mormons). But when Mitt got >95% of Mormon votes, but only 35% statewide, it shows you where his votes came from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Republican_primary,_2008

Note he also won some of the lightly populated but heavily Mormon counties of far eastern Arizona (St. Joseph, Show Low, etc.).

LDS are roughly 6% of Arizona, but double that for their % of the GOP electorate since most are Republicans. So they are maybe 12=15% of GOP primary voters. With Mitt on the ballot, their turnout rate was higher than for average Republicans, so double their numbers again (based on your perception that over half the caucus participants were LDS in a school that is 15% LDS) and they constituted maybe 25-30% of GOP voters in that election (which is why CNN could include them in exit polls). 541K people voted, a quarter of that would be the estimated LDS vote: 135K or so. Mitt won 180K votes in AZ, so it appears that only 45K non-LDS Arizonans voted for him in the GOP primary.

Note: your observations came from a 15% Mormon school (my guess: Chandler or Gilbert?). You can imagine what it was like in Mesa with higher LDS numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Republican_primary,_2008

No evidence of bloc voting whatsoever. ;)

Everyone thinks he is a douche. (North Las Vegas Nevada here)