Presbyterian or Methodist in 2008?

While waiting for the 2044 Republican front runner for President of the USA to be born, I've spent a lot of time on the Internet lately.  I began looking at the personal bios of past Presidents and became interested in the religions that had been represented in the White House.  One thing that I found quite interesting is the fact that JFK is the only Catholic to ever sit in the seat. (The Mormons Jehovah's Witnesses have also had just one - Ike).   A large amount of the population is (was) Catholic.  It got me to wondering, does anyone REALLY care about the religious affiliations of those seeking the most powerful position in the world?

In looking at front runners for 2008, I've tried to take into account several polls, but they vary depending on MANY different factors, so I chose Malkin and Kos for obvious reasons.  These only poll on the respective parties, not against each party.  The results were slightly unexpected.

The GOP prefer Frist and the dems Clark.  I can understand Frist (maybe I'm biased) but Clark?  For the record, Clinton came in FOURTH, behind the aforementioned, as well as Feingold and Edwards.  When the parties face off, votes were 46% for McCain and 37% for Clinton. 

Does the religion matter?  In the democratic primary, you have Baptist (Clark) and Jewish (Feingold) facing off.  Historically, Feingold wouldn't stand a chance.  There have been four Baptists presidents to none for the Jews.  Before you jump all over the Southern Baptist Association and the Bible Belt, the Baptists come in fourth place overall.  In the Republican primary, you would have Presbyterian (Frist) versus Mormon (Romney).  Romney is in the same boat as Feingold.  There have been 10 and 1 Presidents, respectively.  Following the same logic and think-pattern, the election would come down to Presbyterian vs. Baptist (First vs. Clark).  The result would be Frist by a landslide (10 to 4). 

Of course, we know many events, besides religion, come in to play in determining who the next President will be (or even who will make it past the primaries).  If it did come down to McCain and Clinton, you have Episcopalian against Methodist.  Hillary would lose based on our little game here but it is also interesting to note, Bill ran as a Baptist.  He beat the last Episcopalian to run (H.W. Bush).  I wonder if the Clinton's have ever heard "a house divided cannot stand" or "don't be unequally yoked"?  I know, I butchered both sayings, but you know what I mean.

There are HUGE differences in many religions and I suppose that most people think that a sitting President would not push his (or her) religion on the people hence, maybe, the topic isn't discussed much during elections.  I admit that I believe in prayer (as any good Southern Baptist would) and I like that President Bush admits that he spends time in prayer.  However, would I be comfortable with some less popular religion doing the same in the White House?  I just don't know...would you?

Mr. H

Comments

[Mr. C]

I did not know Ike was a Mormon.

My personal opinion is the GOP nominee will be either Allen (from VA) or somebody we aren't really talking about yet.

Regarding religion, I suspect most voters use religion as a way to unselect candidates. That is, they look for candidates they are most comfortable with, or most alike, and use attributes like religion as a cue to identify them. It's much easier to cross a candidate off the list than it is too make a final decision.

While Mitt Romney is a fantastic person, and candidate, being a Mormon will not allow the majority of the voting population to identify with who he is, and most voters will have already selected someone else when Primaries come around.

The scary part comes after the Primary when some voters must now learn about candidates who were not their first, or sometimes second, choices. They often just pick the one they like the most because they don't want to go through the selection process anew. Thsi is typically when investments in mass media advertisements pay off big time.

The process of selecting a candidate is different for every voter. We are no longer an eduucated mass as in years past. the combination of information diversity, information overload and mistrust of information leads most voters to make decisions that have very little to do with a candidate's past successes or likelihood of future success.

Oh, and Mr. H, this is a fantastic post.

[webmaster]

Um... Where'd you get the idea that Ike was a Latter-day Saint? The site you linked to doesn't say that. It accurately reports that Ike (Eisenhower) was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and converted to Presbyterianism. Neither of these is Mormon.

[Mr. H]

Um...You're absolutely right, uh, webmaster? Yes, it was a mistake on my behalf. Is it possible to get tongue-tied in a posting? That's what happened. Thank you for the correction.

[Jen]

Where do you get the idea that there WERE a lot of Catholics? There are over 1 BILLION of us in the world. We are the largest denomination of Christianity by a long shot. And just think about the fact that we don't use birth control...

So, does religion matter? Yes, in short. It's not the only reason I'd vote for someone, just like political party isn't the only reason. But if you'd combine the two into a Catholic Republican, the chances I'd vote for the person are probably around 99%. Throw Irishness into the mix and you're pretty much guaranteed 100%. Run, Bob, run.

[Bob]

Jeb will be the second Catholic President. Forget the NFL, we need him in the White House.

[Mr. C]

Run Jeb! Run.