The Mormon vs The Adulterer

I was inspired to write this post by this article from this Yahoo News article. For myself the choice seems clear if you were to vote solely on morality, you would choose the pious Mormon over a Roman Catholic adulterer, but for many Americans it is just as terrifying to consider a Mormon as it is an adulterer as president.

As made painfully clear by the results of the South Carolina primary, Romney does not have a strong base among the heavily Evangelical south. Taking a look at the chart below one can see Gingrich clearly had the advantage with Evangelicals while Romney clearly had the advantage with all other beliefs. This would suggest a strong correlation between a voter's religious background and their choice in GOP candidates.

Most Americans would sum up Mormonism with: polygamy, Utah, and BYU. Some do not believe they are Christians, in fact according to a Pew Research study 48% believe they are not or don't know, and 25% are less likely to for a candidate if they identify as a Mormon. They only groups who ranked lower in public opinions were Muslims and Atheists. It continues to amaze me though that Americans are less trusting of a pious man still on his first wife (despite polygamist stereotypes) than an adulterous man who married his mistress. Clearly one has a history of lying and dishonesty, but based solely on his religious background the American public perceive him as more trustworthy. 

There is a misperception about Mormons in this country, and it's proving to be a dangerous one. Obama is a beatable candidate this election cycle with many Americans finding his promises for change unfulfilled, but beating him will be no easy task. The GOP needs a strong candidate and no dissension among the party to win. It is highly unlikely that the heavily evangelical states will go blue, but many Republican still fear a third party run by Rick Perry which could very well take key votes from the GOP nominee. 

This simple ignorance of religious beliefs could potentially determine an election. 

Eyebrows and hair, the key to the White House?

Ron Paul.

A friend of mine posted about fashion in politics on her blog, Applying Aesthetics, and I would like to address a similar issue. In less than a month, two articles have come up in my Google Reader from the NY Times regarding the appearances of the GOP candidates. Unlike the Applying Aesthetics post, both articles were about the men. In her post, Meghana discusses how women are prone to more scrutiny when it comes to how they dress and present themselves, but I think men are not immune to this scrutiny, especially in politics.

The first article that came up was about Ron Paul's eyebrows. Basically Ron Paul used fake eyebrows and in the hot studio lights of the presidential debate at Dartmouth, and the adhesive melted causing his fake eyebrow slipped creating the awkward appearance you can see to your right. A campaign spokesperson blamed Paul's allergies and denied that Ron Paul used fake eyebrows. I believe that was the best explanation, because everyone knows that allergies cause abrnomal growth of your eyebrows. What I am really curious about though is why Paul felt that he needed bushier eyebrows? This goes back to an earlier post I did about the advantages of appearance in elections. There must be data out there to support that voters favor candidates with fuller brows.

Mitt Romney.

The second article that I stumbled upon had to do with Mitt Romney's hair. The article describes how Romney's hair has come to represent him, "many [see] in his thick locks everything they love and loathe about the Republican candidate for the White House. (Commanding, reassuring, presidential, crow fans; too stiff, too slick, too perfect, complain critics)", claims the article. I always seem to underestimate the power of appearances. Literally Mitt Romney's hair could either be the key to the White House, or his demise. I thought back to the 2008 presidential election when Mike Huckabee took a crack at Romney by saying, "I want to be a president who reminds you of the guy you work with, not the guy who laid you off". This comment killed him. His image became one of a slick, greedy business man and not a trustworthy leader. None of these critiques center around actions or ideology, but rather appearances.