Mormons supported Trump more than any other religious identity.
Why?

The only demographic that voted for Trump more was White Evangelicals, only because they didn't ask white Mormons.
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/07/13/evangelicals-rally-to-trump-religious-nones-back-clinton/

My Mormon family members seethed with hate for President Obama. They moved to Utah and denied him. He was evil, but Trump is good. They all voted for him.

I don't think I need any other colors to describe it than black and white.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2017 11:05PM by donbagley.

It was sad to see the mental gymastics they used to justify supporting him. Trump is their great white hope.

Great orange hope.

How many people who voted for Trump were actually voting against Clinton?

For once in my life I'd like a choice for world leader that wasn't the lesser of two evils.
Maybe MORmONS figured Trump would fulfill their doomsday prophecies quicker than anybody besides Mitt the orange dick licker.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2017 12:00AM by koriwhore.

The question in the title is: Why did Mormons support Trump?

Posted answers need to be responsive to this particular question.

Posted answers need to be responsive to this particular question.

Why are the mods so 'controlling' when talking liberals and Muslims???

Many people vote against others ---- this was certainly the case here and for 'good reasons', which will obviously get eliminated if enumerated!

Being able to discuss politics here on RfM is still in the "temporary experiment" stage.

The current rule is: Politics may be discussed within the context of Mormonism.

The subject of this thread is within the current rules...the responding posts need to be the same.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2017 01:17AM by Tevai.

I'll try to get us back on track. One major factor, IMO, is that the alternative was a strong-willed female, and, IMO, Mormons simply cannot handle that. They wanted a strong, forceful male who would, among other things, put females like Hillary back in their place as homemakers. And they go what they wanted.

What piques my curiosity is--should he run--how Romney will position himself vis. Trump. Romney struck me as nominating himself as C.E.O. of the never-Trump wing of the Republican Party. Then there was his overt campaigning for Secretary of State, resulting in humiliation. Assuming he'd win if he won, whereto, Mittster? Would he try to replace McCain as G.O.P. anti-Trumper #1?

Two articles, here. The first (previously posted elsewhere) is from a Boston rabble-rouser, very sarcastic, very funny:

https://howiecarrshow.com/mitt-romney-wont-fade-away-quietly/

More seriously, whether you approve or disapprove, the Breitbart constituency is Trump's core, Bannon's exile nothwithstanding. Bob Wasinger wrote these 750 words arguing that the Trump wing of the Republican party should initiate a major offensive against Romney:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/19/night-of-the-living-mitt-wasinger-trump-movement-should-make-romney-senate-defeat-top-priority/

Crazy.
Power hungry whore for dough.

For many Mormons, voting for a Democrat is like voting for the anti Christ. Republicans, however bad, are still the one true party.My family was always Democratic and politics was one reason why I left.

I think that's exactly it. Because he has an 'R' after his name. They only vote for republicans.
I remember reading an article on KSL not too long ago, about some women running for some office as the democratic candidate. When I read the comments, many people were saying that she wasn't going to get their vote because she had a 'D' by her name.
I admittedly use to do the same thing. I always voted straight Republican no matter what, cause I thought Democrats were evil. Now, that I'm out of the church and I feel more open minded, I vote for whoever, regardless of the party. In fact, I didn't vote for either Hillary or Trump this last election, even though I knew I was throwing my vote away. I couldn't, in good conscious, vote for either one.

The whole Democrats vs. Republicans thing is all just a show, to try to make the people believe that we live in a real democracy, while both sides work together on an agenda that is not good for the American people. Even George Bush said he would vote for Hillary after Trump beat out all of the traditional Republicans.

Then Donald Trump comes along and says to both sides that he doesn't agree with either of them, and that he intends to play the game in a way that benefits the American people, and not those who rigged the game against the American people up to that point. So the elitists in both parties throw everything they've got against Trump, including the media that they pretty much control. This is where all of the hate for Trump came from. Many people think how their leaders tell them to think. Both sides amongst the people who were ignorant to the fake Dem vs Rep game had already picked their champions, and it wasn,t Trump in either case. Like a martial arts champion, Trump used all of that energy that had been thrown against him, to defeat his opponents. The Trump campaign was the beneficiary of more than a billion dollars in free advertising during the primaries. That's never been done before. The media whores knew all along what was going on. But they couldn't resist the ratings Trump brought to them, even as they hated him while helping him.

A silent and reasonable majority showed up at the polls to streighten things out. Those who who had already picked a traditional Dem or Rep candidate and who didn't like loosing to an outsider were furious. The extreme ideiologies of both sides deamonize anyone who does not agree with them, because the powers that be (and now, who were), went way too far in this fake Dem vs Rep game. There seems to be two parties now, but not Dem vs Rep. There is the Dem/Rep party (more or less both parties wrapped in to one - even with a civil war going on amongst them), and the other party is the one voted in to office of the Presidency (not exactly Republican). As for why the mormons tended to support Trump, by election day, the other alternative was unpalatable. Too many of them saw the truth of the fake Dem vs Rep game. Not only that, Hillary embodied every politically vile thing that had been harming our country for decades. Trump was a risk. But he didn't represent the bad things that Hillary represented.

Based on my 6 years in 'very active politics' you stated the situation very well.

However, why 'wake' people up in this area ---- they will believe what they want to anyway.

I largely agree with your assessment. Trump successfully employed the Jeese Ventura strategy.

This phenomena might grow. The anti-establishment left have not been co-opted as the right's original tea-partners were (but it might happen under a run by Senator Warren, say.). More everyday see through the media representations. It's hopeful.

(If only less vaudeville-like acts could rise to the Ventura strategy, though.)

Human

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then Donald Trump comes along and says to both
> sides that he doesn't agree with either of them,
> and that he intends to play the game in a way that
> benefits the American people...

Too bad he was lying, and only plays "the game" in a way that benefits *him.*

> A silent and reasonable majority showed up at the
> polls to streighten things out.

The majority voted for the democratic candidate.
Oops.

As for why mormons supported him...I find many mormons to be very issue-limited. No matter what else a candidate may or may not support, if the candidate supports abortion and/or LGBT equal rights, they won't get the mormon vote. Hilary supported those, Trump didn't.

Let's say that you were in Trump's position in the campaigning process. Like everything, you only have limited time and money to work with. There are two ways to campaign. You can either: 1.) Campaign hard in the states who have the most electoral votes that you have a chance of winning, or 2.) Campaign hard in states who have the biggest populations that you might win the popular vote in. You can either say "It's a matter of principal. I intend to win the popular vote and that is how I intend to run my campaign. If I can't win the presidency that way, I don't want it". Or you could say "If I want to win the presidency, I'll have to win the electorial college votes. Right or wrong, that is the reality. I am going to campaign to win the electorial college votes, not necessarily the popular vote".

Trump doesn't like to lose, especially when he knows how to win. Who can blame him for winning the presidency by campaining to win the electorial college votes as opposed to winning the popular vote? If you want to win, you go after the electorial college votes, not necessarily the popular votes. For those who complain that Trump didn't win the popular vote, it's just sour grapes. They wanted Hillary to win and she lost because she campaigned poorly, and made bad decisions.

And to say that Trump was lieing and only plays the game in a way that benefits him is rediculous. The economy hasn't been this good in decades. Trump is making deals with the democrats to the consternation of the mainstream republicans, and Paul Ryan is on the verge of sponsoring a bill to fund the border wall. Trump is doing what he said he would do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2017 01:26AM by azsteve.

This is a deeply uninformed post.

As Hie pointed out, your statement that Trump won a majority of the vote is simply false. Surely you know that.

As for the notion that Trump represents anything other than the establishment, that was originally true. But since he's ousted Bannon and the others, what is left? Kushner, Ivanka, Mnuchin and Cohn are Democrats. Is that the anti-establishment "revolution" that Trump supporters wanted?

And what is Trump himself? He used to be a Democrat, he donated generously to Democrats, and he socialized with the Clintons. He attacked Hillary viciously during the campaign, then at a campagn rally after his victory said we don't really want to lock her up and the Clintons "are good people." Now that he is on the ropes he's reverted to the "crooked Hillary" rhetoric, but do you really think he believes that--I mean, to he extent that he believes anything?

And his policies. After running on an anti-immigrant platform, a week or two ago he went into a meeting with Pelosi and Shumer and came out having endorsed their position on the budget ceiling. The Republicans pursuing Trump's stated goal of a tight restriction of federal spending were left holding the bag. Then Trump went into another meeting with his new "friends," "Chuck and Nancy," and emerged with the outlines of a deal to extend DACA indefinitely. Yes, the very DACA he had promised during the campaign to quash.

Trump did, as you note, run on a platform of opposition to the establishment parties. But to maintain that he has remained true to that aspiration requires a flight from reality. The man was a Democrat, has surrounded himself with Democratic advisors, and is now cooperating with the leaders of the Democratic establishment. The only thing at his point that differentiates him from the Washington establishment is a selfish incompetence, which renders all of his policy decisions somewhat mercurial.

To many Americans he still represents a rebellion against the political and economic elite, but the gap between that vision and reality is widening daily.

I think Human's post below is illuminating. The question isn't why Trump won but rather why Clinton lost. The voting data is clear on that.

Hillary was an unbelievably bad candidate. Her recent book tour and press interviews show how flawed she was. To start with, she hasn't had the grace to say out of the public eye for 2 or 3 years, which is what most defeated presidential candidates do. When they come back, they have some prestige and a patina of respectability. Hillary won't get that. And her determination to blame everyone else for her defeat is remarkably tone-deaf as well as, ultimately, unpersuasive. Surely there were others who could have defeated the uniquely uninformed (who knew healthcare was complicated? No one knew that tax reform is complicated.) and incompetent Trump.

On the other question of whether Mormons would vote Republican if a woman or minority were the R candidate, I'm not as optimistic as Human. I think there is still a significant misogyny in Mormonism, and an even stronger element of racism. My hunch is that if the GOP ran a black candidate, the percentage of Mormons voting for that candidate would be 5-10% lower than for Trump or Romney. The clear majority would still vote for the Republican, but I think there would be a noticeable difference.

Couldn't agree with you more on HRC. Trump managed to get close to Romney's numbers; HRC couldn't with respect to Obama's numbers.


On this, I probably have to also agree:

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> On the other question of whether Mormons would
> vote Republican if a woman or minority were the R
> candidate, I'm not as optimistic as Human. I
> think there is still a significant misogyny in
> Mormonism, and an even stronger element of racism.
> My hunch is that if the GOP ran a black
> candidate, the percentage of Mormons voting for
> that candidate would be 5-10% lower than for Trump
> or Romney. The clear majority would still vote
> for the Republican, but I think there would be a
> noticeable difference.

I'm perhaps optimistic. A lot of it of course would depend on the candidate(s). Ifi- made the point about Mormons being issue driven, so I at least see a possibility of a strong Republican woman getting Mormon support if the platform supported repealing Roe v. Wade. A Latino Republican could get support from Mormons (and Republicans in general) on an anti-immigration platform. People like to hear their own positions echoed by 'the authorities'. This kind of liking, I believe, could overcome ingrained cultural misogyny and racism.

But ya, perhaps I was too optimistic, too glib, too prone to believing that a lot of the old Mormonism that you and I grew up with is and will continue to fall away. I harken back to 1978, when us youngins thought black people just fine (we watched the NBA religiously!) while our parents and especially our grandparents were actually physicaly shocked. Yet.....there's Gladys Knight alright.

Cheers Lot's Wife!

Human

You and I are on the same wavelength.

I'm going to make my point more provocatively. I think the race of the minority matters. I think Mormons would be relatively accepting of an Asian or Latino but probably less so of a black candidate. You indirectly allude to that fact by suggesting that white America used to "love" black people as long as they were athletes or popular entertainers. Perhaps whites are more sensitive because the black-white divide in the US has been so adversarial for so long. If that is correct, perhaps Mormons would be more willing to embrace a black immigrant who did not have the speech patterns and mannerisms that unconsciously evoke memories of American racial conflict.

What I am saying is that racism, misogyny, etc., operate at a subconscious level and are triggered or exacerbated by subtle and unintentional signals. I think this, the most intractable form of prejudice, is still quite strong in Mormonism. I've seen as much in many discussions of Obama in particular. In some of those conversations people have objected to his policies, but when pressed further I often run into statements of emotion or vague discomfort with the man. Susan Rice also elicits such visceral reactions.

Obviously those are my own observations and subject to my own interpretive limitations. But my gut feeling is that Mormons would be less supportive of an American black, with our collective racial memories and perhaps some residual Seed-of-Cain impulse. How much less supportive? Maybe 10% less? Enough to make a difference on a state level though not on a national level (given the small number of Mormons) unless that degree of prejudice extends beyond Mormonism and characterizes the national GOP as well.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> On the other question of whether Mormons would
> vote Republican if a woman or minority were the R
> candidate, I'm not as optimistic as Human.

I wouldn't bet on that, Suppose a Margaret Thatcher rose up in the GOP? Mormons might go for such a candidate. Much would depend upon the issues, economy, etc. especially the candidate opposing her.

Yes, my friend, that is possible.

But itt begs the question whether a Maggie Thatcher could in fact arise from within Mormonism. I suspect anyone with her character would have picked up her handbag and left the chapel many years before she could run for office.

As I read azsteve's post, he is talking exclusively about up to and including the election. Your points about what Trump has done afterwards are beside his point.

However, your points about Trump being a "secret" democrat actually go towards azsteve's main point, that people are increasingly seeing a unitary party, made up of both Rs and Ds. I agree with that, and his assessment that that party by and large puts the American people's needs and desires second (and increasingly the Constitution second, which violates the actual oath they make). This should have been absolutely clear after Obama.

After all, Democrats will grumble about how to pay for single-payer health care, now that Bernie has dragged them into it (despite Hilary's insistence that the U.S. will never have single-payer), and at the same time, largely vote for the renewal of AUMF and an attending, spanking new 700-billion dollar military budget.

azsteve's is exactly right: the unitary establishment party is losing their grip on the imaginations of the American mind, for one because the 'Rs vs Ds' set-up is increasingly seen as a sham. Just look at the establishment Ds embracing war criminal propagandists like Max Boot, Bill Kristol et. al. It's disgusting and it's being noticed. And I'm sure guys like azsteve are disgusted by Trump's embrace of Shumer and Pelosi.

Compromise is a political fact that must take place; but the fake Rs vs Ds sham isn't compromise, even as it compromises the health and well-being of the American Nation and her citizens.

God Save America

Human

--To stay on topic, just as many small d democrats could ignore the enormity of Obama's actual policies, I think many Mormon Rs are just as skilled at ignoring that which they would be loath to admit about Trump. Heck, Mormons may be even more skilled.

I've was thinking about what I wrote about AZSteve's post and came back to my computer to say I'd like to take some of it back. I now see your post and am glad to see you pointed out my error.

I disagree with a lot of Steve's views, and probably yours as well, but he point you both make about he similarity between the Republicans and the Democrats is undeniably correct. I personally think a lot of it stems from Citizens United, the supreme court decision that opened the floodgates to money. This mattered because ultimately there is only one huge source of cash: rich people, largely on Wall Street but also on Main Street. So both parties knock on the same doors to get cash and adopt largely the same policies, policies that benefit he same interests.

So Steve makes a good point about the unitary tendencies of the two parties and the extent of the popular rebellion against that, and I overstated my criticism.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I personally
> think a lot of it stems from Citizens United, the
> supreme court decision that opened the floodgates
> to money. This mattered because ultimately there
> is only one huge source of cash: rich people,
> largely on Wall Street but also on Main Street.
> So both parties knock on the same doors to get
> cash and adopt largely the same policies, policies
> that benefit he same interests.


Not sure about this. Trump spent far less money than Clinton, and less of it came from big wealth:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

Also, Bernie achieved a heckofalot with way less money than Clinton in the primaries, and a lot of his money came from regular folks like ourselves handing over an extra sawbuck or two.

Trump and Bernie demonstrate that a solid message indicating "we're against them and for the people" needs far less money to be effective; and Hillary demonstrated that money isn't everything, and certainly can't make up for a candidate's inherent weaknesses with their own base. She had plenty of money, plenty of supportive media and still...

Americans can seize their country back, even in the face of Citizens United.


I'm confused by Citizens United. It's horrible, and yet my heroes at the ACLU argued for it! And convincingly! But even so, money isn't everything, so long as it's clearly reported where a candidate's money comes from.

The REAL problem is once they, whoever they are, are elected! How to keep them on our side, when there is a massive, well-dug-in establishment ready and able to tell the newly elected President and Congresspeople 'how things really are'. That's the real problem, not the election. (Yes, I'm still myopic enough to believe that Obama was not capable of such blatant mendacity; to choose his cabinet and govern in the exact opposite direction in which he campaigned. I think rather he had no choice, that the Office has no real power.)

Human

I don't think we disagree much.

There is always difference between the parties and between candidates. What I am saying is that the effect of unregulated money is gravitational: over time it tends to drag everyone closer to a single point. Can a rocket or a renegade particle move in another direction? Absolutely. But over time most particles in a single gravitational field are going to end up in close proximity.

A lot of your examples indicate that point. Bernie Sanders was a mercurial particle moving away from the establishment. He was also, from start to finish, unelectable because he lacked the party and financial support he needed to win. Trump likewise ran against the establishment but has gradually become dependent on it. He has literally moved from the outer fringe beyond the Tea Party on an inward trajectory past first the Freedom Caucus, then the Republican establishment and now close to the Democratic establishment. He is currently pushing away from that gravitational core, like an errant particle, but he ultimately has to deal with either the Rs or the Ds if he wants to get anything done.

I am skeptical that America can take its government back from the elite. I'd like to point out, though, that there is little agreement on what "America" means in that context. Trump voters have one vision, Bernie's supporters have another, Rand Paul yet another and Mitch McConnell yet another. Then there is the centrist Democratic camp.

Democracy is a process of compromise between competing interests. None of us will ever "possess" America because there are so many different owners. There will always be disenchanted groups and they will never gain full satisfaction--at least as long as the country remains a democracy. The compromise and consequent, almost universal disgruntlement, does not concern me. It is the mark of a stable and functioning democracy. I do, however, worry about the effect of money, which narrows the range of outcomes that normally inform a democracy and renders the political system significantly less responsive to broad changes in national sentiment. Less adaptable and resilient, the country becomes socially and politically fragile.

Yep, we don't disagree much at all. Your point about the 'gravitational' power of money is well taken.


When I say 'God Save America' I am mostly thinking of her Constitution and its Amendments. That's America to me, and it is that which the President swears an oath to protect and uphold.

One of the greatest tricks Bush II played on the American people was to convince the bulk of them that it was his first duty to protect the people, EVEN at the expense of the Constitution. That's un-American and violates his oath; and it is yet to be corrected. All Americans own the Constitution; especially those yet to be born, for whom it is the present duty of today's citizens to hand down an intact, still living and breathing Constitution of the United States. The ideas enshrined therein ARE the shining city upon the hill!


For a group who claim to be the last battle-line in preserving the Constitution, the Mormons, they sure as hell haven't shown much affection or even understanding of what the document is. Would that *some* group would come forth and be that last battle-line.

"However, your points about Trump being a "secret" democrat actually go towards azsteve's main point, that people are increasingly seeing a unitary party, made up of both Rs and Ds."

COMMENT: There is still a very strong dichotomy between Ds and Rs, which can be generally characterized as a continuum between strong libertarians on the right, and socialists (social democrats) on the left. The uniting does exist, as evidenced by the 10 percent of Sanders voters who went for Trump, and maybe that's a trend, but I doubt it. Consider health care, where no Democrats are on board with the R proposals, which are basically libertarian in orientation, where the D position (especially the single payer) emphasizes "rights" and social justice as related to health care.
___________________________________

" I agree with that, and his assessment that that party by and large puts the American people's needs and desires second (and increasingly the Constitution second, which violates the actual oath they make). This should have been absolutely clear after Obama."

COMMENT: Did you mean the peoples needs and desires "first?" Otherwise, you have two seconds. With that assumption, the Trump appeal to people's desires and needs is a ruse; its non-existent. His supporters are rebels, yes. They think that economic justice can be achieved through libertarian policies, which is ludicrous. In short, they were duped. If they really wanted economic justice, they should have aligned with Bernie, but that would have put their guns, racism, and Civil War, monuments, in jeopardy.

The Constitution, to my mind, emphasizes intellectual and religious liberty over and above economic libertarianism. Thus, a social democrat who espouses universal health care is in keeping with a Constitution that promises "justice for all." The Constitution, and the social justice it is supposed to protect, implies a level playing field in the context of capitalism. Social policies that involve housing, health care, and employment are basic to that level playing field, and thus social policies that embrace such things are in keeping with the Constitution; libertarianism notwithstanding.
___________________________________________

"After all, Democrats will grumble about how to pay for single-payer health care, now that Bernie has dragged them into it (despite Hilary's insistence that the U.S. will never have single-payer), and at the same time, largely vote for the renewal of AUMF and an attending, spanking new 700-billion dollar military budget."

COMMENT: "Dragged them into it?" Your libertarian colors are showing. There is a distinction between the costs of social justice as associated with socialist social policies, and that of economic excesses that serve the military and intelligence communities. There could be a real danger in the later, but that does not undermine either the need for, or Constitutional legitimacy of, the former.
__________________________________

"azsteve's is exactly right: the unitary establishment party is losing their grip on the imaginations of the American mind, for one because the 'Rs vs Ds' set-up is increasingly seen as a sham. Just look at the establishment Ds embracing war criminal propagandists like Max Boot, Bill Kristol et. al. It's disgusting and it's being noticed. And I'm sure guys like azsteve are disgusted by Trump's embrace of Shumer and Pelosi."

COMMENT: This is over-stated. True, there are broad issues that Rs and Ds seem to embrace, not all of which are positive, but the basic R and D distinctions still are evident and controlling in American politics.
___________________________________

"Compromise is a political fact that must take place; but the fake Rs vs Ds sham isn't compromise, even as it compromises the health and well-being of the American Nation and her citizens."

COMMENT: What are you talking about? Be specific. I assume you are worried about the increasing power of the US Intelligence Community, and the US Military complex, which R and Ds both to some extent embrace. But we are not to the point where Constitutional checks and balances have been severely undermined in either case. Moreover, as indicated above, that does not make the real distinctions between R and Ds a sham.
___________________________________

"--To stay on topic, just as many small d democrats could ignore the enormity of Obama's actual policies, I think many Mormon Rs are just as skilled at ignoring that which they would be loath to admit about Trump. Heck, Mormons may be even more skilled."

COMMENTS: The policies of Obama with respect to social justice were not ignored. You undoubtedly are referencing his policies as related to military action and the IC. O.K. I can agree with that. And I am concerned too; but not to the point of paranoia about American democracy surviving. My paranoia about that is directed to the total incompetency of Trump, and the naivety of the electorate that brought him to power. That he was a con man was evident from day one, but people didn't care. That is what concerns me.

To sum up my criticism of your view, if I understand it, which I am not sure I do, you seem to equate military and IC excesses with an abandonment of libertarian principles. O.K. I get that. But then you seem to put Democratic socialist policies that embrace the idea of social justice in the same non-libertarian, excessive and dangerous bag, which I manifestly disagree with. In short, it would seem that Rand Paul libertarianism is your American political model.

Please correct me if I am wrong about your view.

The art of negotiation requires compromise. Yes, Trump is making deals with the enemy. In some cases, he is reversing his position on some things that he made campaign promises on and that I still care about. But he is getting some wins on things I care about too. That is politics is supposed to work.

During the campaigns, I heard a comment that I bought in to fully, the moment I heard it. "If Trump can't take over the Republican party, I want him to destroy it", and I am a Republican. The fake Dem vs Rep game needs to come to an end.

One reason: the sheer momentum of their MORmON conservative indoctrination because, truth be told, LDS Inc did NOT want Trump, because Trump and Trump's proposed border wall was going to cost LDS inc money by hindering MORmON growth with the Lamanites. However LDS inc knew that they could not directly say so, so they sent MORmON sock puppets Rmoney and Glenn Beck to rabidly attack Trump and to try to scuttle his campaign.

This is an important point. The church always chooses the outcome that supports its interests. After decades of urging respect for the law, a decade or so ago the church came out as opposed to restrictions on illegal immigration and against efforts to expel the undocumented. Why? Because Latin America is one of the few places were Mormonism is thriving (relatively) and the influx of people and money matters.

In fact, I think the church quietly tried to urge Mormons not to vote for Trump. You may recall a letter the First Presidency sent out to the stakes soon after the "grab them by the. . . cat" interview was leaked. In it the church urged people to vote for candidates who embodied ethical and family values. That was indirect, obviously, but in the context I think it meant that the church did not support Trump. Was sexual misconduct one of the reasons the church didn't like him? I suspect it was. But I'll bet the immigrant question was at least as important.

The church was in a difficult position. On the one hand it did not want to harm immigrants but on the other it had to be very careful because of political trends within the Mormon community. What I mean is that the Denver Snuffer crowd and the identity movement (where is that mommy with a purpose?) have become influential. The church is quietly trying to suppress those, but they remain significant. Too public a stance against Trump and his (now de-emphasized) anti-immigrant policies might alienate the quietly expanding right within the church.

It's a fine line to walk: encouraging immigration, legal or otherwise, while not offending conservative Mormons.

The lamanite community has become quite precious to LDS Inc, and LDS Inc is counting on the south of the border crowd more than ever because LDS Inc is big time losing out with the white and delight some folks.

another thing, MONEY is what really counts to LDS inc and its MORE MONEY church,more than anything else.

To answer the question one must peal back the rhetoric and propaganda entangled in the 2016 post mortem. This is hard to do.

Here are the boring facts, unrecognizable to those caught up in MSNBC, The Resistance™, etc:

"Donald Trump did not win because of a surge of white support. Indeed he got less white support than Romney got in 2012. Nor did Trump win because he got a surge from other race+gender groups. The exit polls show him doing slightly better with black men, black women, and latino women than Romney did, but basically he just hovered around Romney’s numbers with every race+gender group, doing slightly worse than Romney overall.

"However, support for Hillary was way below Obama’s 2012 levels, with defectors turning to a third party. Clinton did worse with every single race+gender combo except white women, where she improved Obama’s outcome by a single point. Clinton did not lose all this support to Donald. She lost it into the abyss. Voters didn’t like her but they weren’t wooed by Trump."

http://mattbruenig.com/2017/09/19/the-boring-story-of-the-2016-election/

So where do Mormons fit into this?

Usually, most voting goes along long-standing party affiliations, Ds vote Democrat and Rs vote Rebublican. That answers why most votes are cast as they are cast. Since Mormons tend towards the Republicans, for a myriad of reasons, most Mormons would naturally vote for Trump. There is no mystery in thiS.

A more interesting situation vis-a-vis Mormons and voting will arise if or when the Rs put up a woman or a non-white person. My hunch is that this would not damper the Mormon Republican vote one bit. Mormons would still largely vote R.

Human

My family always voted Republican and looked down on Democrats specifically because their understanding was that the Church Leaders always voted Republican and so that had to be what Heavenly Father wanted. I think my father got this from Ezra Taft Benson and kept it going from there. I'm surprised Dad never joined the Birchers.

In the last election my Mother told me she was so happy to be able to vote for McMullen (sp?) because she couldn't stand Trump but would have voted for him over Clinton because he was the Republican! That was the reason. Nothing to do with who she thought might be in the country's best interest. She was voting in the best interest of the G.A.s---her real god.

I know quite a few families that think that way in the part of Utah I come from.

(New book/game):

(take-off on Where's Waldo):

Where's Mittney?

California?


Massachusetts?

Utah?

2016 produced meager candidates for the DNC

Trump was pro Americana, used God, claims to consult worship leaders to call on God. Clinton is probably a Wicca alumni, or plays the part at one point she said she wanted to be a preacher...

Both fib and lie at times. Clinton was seen as corrupt.

Perhaps a big observation was Trump wanted to bring back Law and Order. Fight the drug gangs, enforce existing laws etc.


Mormons are all about Obedience and adhering to God's commandments.


Mormons are also not one party block voters. They range up and down the spectrum. Liberal Mormons don't like all the RNC talk from the pulpit and conservatism and all that unless it's financial. Mormon church is behind times in many social issues and acceptance of others.

All in --- Law and order needs to be enforced among many things and Clinton is certainly not that.

So Trump won on many counts but it was his personality and OUTside the system appeal, and Pro America 1st much like God is 1st for religious folks that swayed a block of voters to Trump.

This is all speculation as it's impossible to know for sure.


I do know that millions of democrats didn't even vote because they were disgusted with everybody.

Because Mormons are in the habit of believing vague statements, ie how Trump communicates

Rather than realistic plans showing costs, time frames, benefits...

Trump has an us vs them mentality, like Mormons

Vs a cooperative, accepting directive

TSCC cannot and will not endorse a woman for president because women do not and will not have any power positions in the church or elsewhere? The church hates feminism. Women must be suppressed and owned, told what to do and the like.

They were both bad choices. People who voted for him was essentially a vote against his rival. Even if they didn't start out supporting him, they'd rather have an unknown for president than a known corrupt politician. I have to say Mitt Romney was spot on when he warned America that DJT is a con artist.

Mormons will always revert to the conservative candidate over a democratic one based on ideology. The Mormon candidate, Evan McMullen, drew many Mormon voters in the primary. When it was clear he didn't have a chance, those Mormon voters defected to Trump rather than cast their vote for a woman and a Democrat.

Trump is really a-political, but he was able to fool those who became his base. In their eyes he can do no wrong, which is indicative of how blinded they are to his character and his going rogue.

Mormons will hold him up over a democratic rival because of his acting ability to fool them, and their uncanny ability to be overly trusting and gullible.

Heck it was Mormons who blindly followed Hitler during the reign of the Third Reich. Their patriotism clouded their judgment and ethics to do what was right in the face of great evil. They supported Hitler's regime and turned their backs on those who were being rounded up by the gestapo marked for genocide.

You said "The Mormon candidate, Evan McMullen, drew many Mormon voters in the primary."

No, he didn't. He wasn't even a candidate until well after the primary. He announced his candidacy in August.

He was siphoning away votes from the Donald from Mormon voters. Still didn't get enough to make a difference.

You're right it was the general not the primary he ran in in 11 states. He was considered a disrupter by both sides, especially the GOP.

My niece and her husband, both TBM conservative from Utah, voted for him, as others in their cloistered world.

The other morning, I watched as Trump addressed the United Nations. I felt a real sense of pride when he said that "I will always put the United States first". I almost immediately felt the same level of pride again when he immediately followed up with "and you should always put your countries first too". That may sound odd to some people at first. But what I heard was that Mexico (for example) was hearing that they don't need the US to be great so they can feed off of our scraps. They can make Mexico be great too, without their needing charity or illegal employment in the US. The other world leaders heard the same message. It's not a zero-sum game. I will make my country be great and you will make your country be great too.

That message is so refreshing when the past eight years have been spent by our government trying to tell us that we are all racists and xenaphobs if we're not willing to give our nation's wealth away to other countries and disadvantaged people (mostly through one-sided trade deals and unrestrained immigration), a black whole of endless unfulfilled need that we should feel guilty about, unless we're willing to throw our wealth in to it too. Nationalism is good. It fosters healthy self-dependance by entire nations who might otherwise be welfare states. We can still be a charitable people. But socialism is not forcing us to become selfishly clinging to what little wealth we have.

The mormon people tend to highly value self-dependance. Our nation's downward spiral started with the start of the NAFTA agreement. I am pretty sure that Trump's Nationalism resonates with the mormon people. Hopefully globalism is dead or dieing. Make (put your country's name here) great.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2017 03:05AM by azsteve.

This troubles me.

Putting the United States first and avoiding foreign entanglements--what Trump campaigned on--is fine as long as you are comfortable letting Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons and Russia have the Ukraine and a dominant position in the oil market and in fact a significant role in determining the outcome of US elections. If any of those worry you, however, you need international support. Sanctions and military pressure both require that. In security terms, therefore, independent states are significantly less "great" than ones that have stable long-term alliances.

Second, the notion that trade weakens the United States is a faith-based argument. The data, assuming you care about that, is clear that the wealth effect is precisely the opposite of what you claim. China's trade surplus with us means lower interest rates here, lower mortgage prices, lower credit card rates, and higher bond and stock prices even as it implies lower prices for consumer goods. There are adverse distributional effects for some parts of the US workforce, and those need to be (and have not adequately been) addressed but the country as a whole is much wealthier, and living standards much higher, than would be the case without trade liberalization and trade agreements. If you have quantitative evidence to support your (distinctly minority) view to the contrary, please share it. And I don't mean political polemics.

Third, the US and southwestern economies are dependent on illegal immigrants and would suffer massively if those immigrants were all expelled. White Americans are not reproducing fast, so the average age of that cohort is rising and consumption is flat or falling. The reason that the US does so much better than other aging countries is that the immigrants have lots of children and spend lots of money; they also pay lots of taxes. If you remove the 14% of AZ's labor that is illegal, guess what? The cost of labor rises, agricultural prices increase, and living standards fall. This basic economic reality does not mean that the US should refrain from standardizing and enforcing a realistic immigration law system, but anyone who thinks that expelling a big chunk of the national economy and workforce will make the US "greater" in an economic sense needs to stop smoking that stuff.

Also, the notion that nationalism makes countries independent and uninterested in welfare is historically incorrect. Often the opposite is correct. It was state welfare that brought Germany out of the Depression and installed the National Socialists in power; Stalin and Mao both stoked the fires of nationalism to support their socialist agendas; and North Korea is doing the same. There are welfare states that are not totalitarian, to be sure, but it is incorrect to assert that national independence implies a rejection of socialism or the welfare state.

And the notion that the US "downward spiral" started with NAFTA is curious. NAFTA was a relatively small trade agreement that has added about 0.3% to annual US growth. Is that a bad thing? If it is, why don't you criticize the much larger trade agreements reached by the US in previous decades, ones that had a much bigger effect on the national economy?

Kinda scary that 20% of voters in Utah voted for Egg McMuffin because they were told to.

Bordering on a theocracy here.... Didn't that get the Mo kicked out of at least 3 states before?

Trump received less of the vote in Utah than any other Republican candidate in my memory. Utah was overwhelmingly for Cruz in the Primary. Clinton was simply disliked by most of the country that didn't live in California.

It does seem Mormons will vote for a conservative woman. Just look at the Congressperson from Utah County. Hillary's being a woman had nothing to do with Mormons not voting for her. Nikki Haley would get the Mormon vote if she were running for President.

It was simply the R behind his name and their robotic mindset. Same as here in the South. No candidate in their right mind is going to waste time or money campaigning in Utah or Deep South states. Dems concede it and Pubs consider it automatic wins. God wants them to fight the gays. Period.