Yes, in 2012, I remember talking with Mormons who wanted Romney to win over Obama.

They were searching for anything to support him. He organized the Winter Olympics, and that made him automatically presidental material.

He was governor of a liberal, wealthy state and he created the first Obamacare: this made him the ideal presidential candidate for the Republican party.

When he lied (and boy did he), they told me "all politicians lie." That made it okay, I guess.

Now, all the Mormons I know have stopped all their mental gymnastics. Evidently, Romney isn't who they thought he was.

Sigh. And they wanted him to be president. 11 years later they are having misgivings.

And the Mormons I know—the ones who barely have a pot to piss in— are disappointed by the multi-million, former governor of a wealthy, liberal state. They're realizing now how little they have in common with him.

I don't know where you live, but I'll bet it isn't Salt Lake City. The truth is that there is a gaping rift between the two socioeconomic factions of Mormonism. There are the "no pot to piss in" poorer people disproportionately in more rural areas and there are the wealthy urbanites.

Their politics are different. To the wealthy city dwellers, Romney represents what is still the proper version of Republicanism; to the poorer and less educated people in outlying areas, he is a traitor and people like Ammon bundy and Mike Lee are the true Mormons, the true patriots.

This division is a huge problem for the Q15. They have hinted at favoring the anti-Trump brand of conservatism but will not--cannot--express their views explicitly lest the people whom you describe walk away from the church.

What I'm suggesting is that your views describe one side of a profound chasm between two "churches" that are held together by duct tape and chewing gum.

I see your point.

And, yes, I am not in Utah.

The poor Mormons I know, and work with, are all white collar professionals. 4,6, and 7 kids quickly eats into your income. They might as well be blue collar at this point since at least one falls below the poverty line.

They have a disdain for "wealthy people," that drive BMWs and Mercedes. But these same people we work with that have these "fancy cars" don't make budget-crushing decisions like having a gaggle of kids and tithing 10%.

This schism was bound to flare up. I guess it's good to have it now while the church is being scrutinized for its $100 billion fund.

What you say makes perfect sense.

I wonder if that church schism projects outside of Utah onto two groups: traditional republicans and the more populist republicans. ??? But I think wealthy republicans can belong to the latter group.

For example, my late father, who was a retired military officer and had a small rental property empire, wasn't "rich" but was certainly worry free. Romney was not his choice in the primaries, but the instant Romney was nominated, he was rooting for Romney. Same with my older non-TBM brother, who at the time was an active military officer.

OTOH, my TBM brother, also an officer on active duty, was solidly behind Romney just because Romney is mormon (I assume, because he likely otherwise shared my dad's values). I do know this: in the primary season for the 2008 election cycle, I was visiting and my TBM brother's daughter asked him in a voice laced with worry, "Daddy, what if Mitt Romney doesn't get the nomination?" From her quavery tone and demeanor, you'd think that it would be the end of the world (probably because at home and church that's what she was hearing). Mittens was not nominated and I'm sure they were crushed, but I'm also sure that my brother voted for McCain who did get the nomination, and not Obama.

My dad and non-TBM brother didn't like Romney's politics or religion, but voted for him anyway. My TBM-brother supported Mittens through multiple election cycles, even though Romney probably was "not conservative enough," because he strongly identifies with Romney's religion. A lot of people vote for the party once the candidates are selected, even if their preferred candidate is not nominated. For many, he was just the flavor of the day. For some, he was and still is the flavor.

Anyway, all that to say, I don't think he went from saint to persona non grata. For a lot of people, I think he went from persona non grata, to "I'll hold my nose and vote for you," and then back to persona non-grata. And some people liked him all along.

I think the more mormon-centric one's worldview, the more likely they were to support Romney, even if he wasn't conservative enough.

Sorry to ramble...hopefully there's something coherent above. :D



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2023 05:08PM by Gordon B. Stinky.

"And the Mormons I know—the ones who barely have a pot to piss in— are disappointed"

Mitt's 46% aren't held in much esteem by the hedge fund crowd either.

I suspect if the church bought Jesus a gold toilet they would let Mitt Romney use it.

The big three put out a statement saying that it’s ok for Mormons to be democrat, and they encouraged members to vote for the person who shares the same morals as the church. Hmmm, I guess that negates several “wannabes”.