Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Poll: Evangelicals abandon GOP in droves; Updated by an evangelical

posted at 7:20 pm on October 19, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

“Conservative voters likely to stay home,” says the WashTimes. Kurtz breezes through a checklist of reasons why in a column titled “Apocalypse Now?” The LA Times and WaPo independently report Democratic gains in the heartland, including within the left’s favorite sociology laboratory. And then, of course, there’s Iraq.

And now this, from Pew:

pew-evang.gif

There’s plenty more at the link and very little of it appears attributable to the Kuo effect, if there even is such a thing. This has, it seems, been building for awhile, and the rate at which support is eroding outstrips the rate among even non-religious voters. Anyone have any theories why? Evangelical Christian opinions welcome!

Between that and this, I’d say it’s time to hit the panic button. Assuming there’s anything left once Moran and Mary K are done pounding on it.

Update (Bryan–Hot Air’s resident evangelical): For me, the article’s last couple of sentences are key.

The most important unknown in the final weeks of the 2006 election campaign is how motivated evangelicals will be to turn out to vote. Despite discussion about the possibility that turnout among evangelicals might be depressed this year, Pew’s latest poll finds evangelicals no more or less enthusiastic about voting than other groups in the electorate, and they are no different from registered voters as a whole in their overall likelihood of voting.

So what does this mean? Well, speaking for myself, the more outrageous the Democrats and the nutroots get, the more motivated I get to vote against them. The weaker the left gets on the war, while at the same time ramping up the hate against Bush and the Republicans and their supporters and promising to investigate our way toward defeat in the war, the more motivated I get to vote against them. Which means voting for the Republicans, where I have cast most of my votes my entire adult life. I can’t imagine pulling a lever for the Democrats again for as long as I live.

There’s a bottom line relationship I see evangelicals such as myself having with the GOP that’s just impossible to have with the Democrats. That bottom line is, that while the GOP isn’t perfect, at least it’s not actively hostile toward and intolerant of my faith. The Democrats as a party tend to be hostile to traditional and evangelical conservatives. You only have to be an evangelical and strike up a conversation about religion with most liberals to understand what I mean by that. Their hate for evangelicals can heat up a good sized room. The Kuo book that Allah mentions above is in my mind an attempt to paint the GOP as, internally, actively hostile to evangelicals, but when you peel away the layers Kuo seems to be shocked that politicians see government programs in political terms. Well, color me unshocked by that. It certainly doesn’t make me take a second look at the Democrats. And color me unmoved to punish the GOP for the Foley scandal, which is awful but still looks to me to be the result of the actions and predilections of one man, not the whole party. And it’s not like Barney Frank’s Democrats have the moral highground anyway. If you’re going to work scandalous behavior and how each party deals with such in its own ranks into your calculations, the imperfect Republicans still do quite a bit better than the Democrats at cleaning up their own messes. In fact, when was the last time the Democrats actually cleaned up one of their own messes? I guess you could say they did impeach Judge Alcee Hastings on bribery charges a while back, but lookie there, if that isn’t Mr. Hastings in Congress, an elected Democrat in good standing and preparing to take over the Armed Services Committee if the Democrats win in November. That clean-up obviously didn’t take. Democrat clean-ups never do.

So while this evangelical is all too aware that the Republicans have fumbled on their own goal line during this entire election season, in the binary choice facing us in November it’s not even a close call for me. I’ll vote Republican, proudly. The Democrats have themselves, their unhinged activist base, their open hostility toward evangelicals, their promise to raise taxes, their weakness and lies about our country in the face of America’s enemies, and their own corrupt and amoral personnel in Congress to thank for that. I’m not thrilled with the Republicans, but I strongly dislike and actively oppose the Democrats.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

One of Kuo’s major themes, which of course gets lost in the reporting which concentrates on the whole “Rove called Falwell a jerk/alert the media” nonsense, is the idea that Bush campaigned on the idea of being a compassionate conservative, with real concerns about poverty–the whole “Christian” part of Christianity.

And of course, jack has been done.

honora on October 20, 2006 at 10:03 AM

while the GOP isn’t perfect, at least it’s not actively hostile toward and intolerant of my faith.

AP

Nicely done, Allah (pbuh). As most have said in some form or another: just because I recognize that some Republicans are no better than the scum-sucking Democrats, why on earth do you think I would vote for the scum-sucking Democrats?

As for moonbats like Constantine, no ink should be wasted.

And for Democrats in the press like Kurtz, suggesting that Evangelicals will abandon the GOP because there is a queer in the woodpile … in favor of whom, the Democrats? Where the queers run the show?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense …

Jaibones on October 20, 2006 at 10:11 AM

To add to what Jaibones wrote, an excerpt from the Union Leader’s editorial:

If any conservatives – fiscal, religious or otherwise – believe that their interests would best be advanced by making Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House, they are deluding themselves.

Can anyone imagine a Democratic House passing a tough border control bill? The Republican House did that this year. Can anyone imagine a Democratic House passing tax cuts? The Republican House has done that year after year. Can anyone imagine a Democratic House approving legislation allowing U.S. forces to be more aggressive in the War on Terror? The Republican House did that this year.

Conservatives of all stripes. HOLD YOUR NOSE if necessary, and vote Republican.

georgej on October 20, 2006 at 10:28 AM

with real concerns about poverty–the whole “Christian” part of Christianity.

Uh, huh.

Yup, the entire reason Jesus came to earth, ministered among people and died was to keep people out of poverty and preach the good news of government assistance.

Hint: Jesus talked about poverty. Just not of the flesh.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 10:35 AM

with real concerns about poverty–the whole “Christian” part of Christianity.

Uh, huh.

Yup, the entire reason Jesus came to earth, ministered among people and died was to keep people out of poverty and preach the good news of government assistance.

Hint: Jesus talked about poverty. Just not of the flesh.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 10:35 AM

1) The whole idea behind the office of faith based initiatives was/is to deploy the assets of churches and community groups to address the needs of the poor, in lieu of government assistance. This is when I think I need to make the “strawman” comment, right?

2) Jesus talked about the poor (physical not spiritual)countless times, check your Bible.

honora on October 20, 2006 at 10:43 AM

Jesus talked about the poor (physical not spiritual)countless times, check your Bible.

Yes, he did. But to call His words on poverty the “Christian” part of Christianity is absurd.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 10:47 AM

Jesus’ ministry was spiritual first and physical second. He told the apostles that if no one recieved their words to shake the dust off their feet and move on. He didn’t say if they didn’t receive their words it was okay, just so long as you take care of their physical needs.

Rose on October 20, 2006 at 10:59 AM

Yes, he did. But to call His words on poverty the “Christian” part of Christianity is absurd.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 10:47 AM

Really? Don’t agree–the two keys according to Jesus are to love God and love your neighbor. And a big part of loving your neighbor is helping him. I see too many people today who loudly proclaim their faith being most comfortable pointing out other people’s shortcomings and less comfortable actually sacrificing any of their own for others.

I think this is why most people were so taken aback by the behavior of the Amish–seeing people actually living their faith and not just flapping their lips was pretty unusual.

honora on October 20, 2006 at 11:00 AM

Yeah, I’m just going to stop here, as your strawmen are starting to irritate.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 11:05 AM

But the Amish are very spiritual people. Their works are evidence of their faith. It does not exist instead of their faith. To say that the heart of Christianity is works is denying the original purpose of Christ’s birth and his death and resurrection.

Rose on October 20, 2006 at 11:10 AM

Dear People,

Please educate youselves, and WISE UP. Other than a few social issues, there is no difference between a Demi-rat and a Republi-cat. Ultimately both Parties work for the same puppet masters, and are both taking us to the same place. IE: One World Government. Apart from the rise of a viable third party, this end is inevitable.

Dollydog on October 20, 2006 at 11:10 AM

Many evangelicals may very well be dissatisfied with the GOP but that certainly would not drive them into the arms of Democrats! That said, the GOP is not doing itself a favor by retreating from social conservatism.

Social conservatives are the core of the GOP even if some wish to deny it. The GOP had better pay attention to them.

irishsquid on October 20, 2006 at 11:11 AM

Yeah, I’m just going to stop here, as your strawmen are starting to irritate.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 11:05 AM

I imagine having your ignorance exposed as to the mission of the OFBCI exposed is pretty irritating as well. Not to mention that it is apparently news to you that Jesus spoke of physical poverty, not just poverty of the spirit.

honora on October 20, 2006 at 11:19 AM

Actually, I know exactly what the OFBCI does – I didn’t defend them because I don’t agree with their mission or with churches taking government money.

Debating with you has become unpleasant.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 11:24 AM

RightWinged.

I really don’t know why you’re pressing this issue. You’re wrong. And by mentioning that Catholics voted for Carter, Clinton, and Gore, you help me make my point that the trend with the Catholic vote is in the more conservative direction. This is partly due to voter education campaigns by groups like “Catholic Answers” that in the last election cycle explained to Catholic voters the 5 non-negotiable issues, Abortion, Euthanasia, Cloning, Homosexual marriage, and embryonic stem cell research, things, that the church teaches are always wrong.

“Well your last claim doesn’t come wth numbers backng them up….”

Ok, fine, here ya go:
Two gallop polls before the 2004 election revealed that Catholic registered voters who attend church weekly (only 1/3 of all Catholic registered voters)supported Bush over Kerry by a 52 to 42 percent margin. Among “Catholic” voters who seldom or never go to church (a group that makes up 38 percent of self described Catholics)Kerry had a large lead of 52 to 42 percent.

But isn’t it common sense that more orthodox Catholics would have more conservative voting patterns?

It would be correct to say that Evangelicals vote Republican by a much larger margin than Catholics, something like 78 percent in the 2004 presidential election.

That’s why it is so important for them to get out and vote in this election. We rely on their votes.

Nice Deb on October 20, 2006 at 11:40 AM

Hi Slublog,

Love ya, babe…you can debate with me any time.

Nice Deb on October 20, 2006 at 11:43 AM

Thanks, Nice Deb. Ditto.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 11:44 AM

I don’t believe in the evangelical boogey man in the first place, we don’t block vote at anywhere near the numbers of union members or african americans. The current republican party may not represent me but the democrats openly demonize my faith, I’ve never understood why but there it is. I always get a laugh when I read a msm report about christianity in america, its like a national geographic traveloge to Bourneo, exotic and frightning.

babychuma on October 20, 2006 at 11:50 AM

Yeah, I’m just going to stop here, as your strawmen are starting to irritate.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 11:05 AM

And yet….

Actually, I know exactly what the OFBCI does – I didn’t defend them because I don’t agree with their mission or with churches taking government money.

Debating with you has become unpleasant.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 11:24 AM

Discipline above all. You folks just can’t help yourselves, cracks me up.

honora on October 20, 2006 at 11:54 AM

Ooohhh…really got me there.

Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 11:55 AM

But isn’t it common sense that more orthodox Catholics would have more conservative voting patterns?

It would be correct to say that Evangelicals vote Republican by a much larger margin than Catholics, something like 78 percent in the 2004 presidential election.

That’s why it is so important for them to get out and vote in this election. We rely on their votes.

Nice Deb on October 20, 2006 at 11:40 AM

ND: I think you’re right, though in general I think it’s probably a mistake to lump conservative Catholics with Evangelicals.

honora on October 20, 2006 at 11:56 AM

I wonder if black christians fall under the evangelical label in this poll. Those I know are very devout and values driven, but historically vote Democrat. Or can it be assumed that when the media refers to evangelicals they are strictly talking about southern or rural white christians?

MRegine on October 20, 2006 at 12:02 PM

I wonder if black christians fall under the evangelical label in this poll. Those I know are very devout and values driven, but historically vote Democrat. Or can it be assumed that when the media refers to evangelicals they are strictly talking about southern or rural white christians?

MRegine on October 20, 2006 at 12:02 PM

Good question. I imagine in the Pew poll, people self identify. In the larger sense, I know when I think of Evangelicals, I think of white people, not necessarily Southern or rural but mainly so. The question on voting patterns is interesting, I know that Bush made a big push with black churches in Ohio in 2004.

honora on October 20, 2006 at 12:17 PM

MRegine,

Here are some stats I was able to dig up from “Public Eye.Org”:

In 2000, 45 percent of the population told Gallop that they were Evangelical Christians. 96 percent of black Evangelicals voted for Gore, only 4 percent for Bush. Bush did did slightly better in 2004 with the black vote.

Some more interesting stats from 2000: Almost half of Evangelical voters were Republican, only 1/4 Democrat. The biggest voting block (among all Evangelicals) in 2000 was the non voters at 52 percent.

Nice Deb on October 20, 2006 at 12:32 PM

MRegine,

Here are some stats I was able to dig up from “Public Eye.Org”:

In 2000, 45 percent of the population told Gallop that they were Evangelical Christians. 96 percent of black Evangelicals voted for Gore, only 4 percent for Bush. Bush did did slightly better in 2004 with the black vote.

Some more interesting stats from 2000: Almost half of Evangelical voters were Republican, only 1/4 Democrat. The biggest voting block (among all Evangelicals) in 2000 was the non voters at 52 percent.

Nice Deb on October 20, 2006 at 12:32 PM

I don’t understand this (I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer so bear with me).

In 2000, 52% of Evangelicals did not vote? So of the 48% who voted, about half were Rs and a quarter Ds. Is that right?

And the 45% is of blacks or all polled? That seems very high to me. Thanks for the info.

honora on October 20, 2006 at 12:50 PM

Honora,
“So of the 48 percent who voted, about half were Rs and a quarter Ds. Is that right?”

Yep, from what I can gather.

You’re right, 45 percent of the population does sound high, perhaps the number represents 45 percent of the Christian population. That sounds right. Might just be a case of sloppy reporting.

Nice Deb on October 20, 2006 at 1:09 PM

Going back a bit in the comments: Ministry to the poor is a part of the expression of Christianity, but it alone it is not the “Christian” part of Christianity. It would then be mere moralism, rather than an expression of the love of God and love for one’s neighbor. The Christian part of Christianity is repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

INC on October 20, 2006 at 2:37 PM

Going back a bit in the comments: Ministry to the poor is a part of the expression of Christianity, but it alone it is not the “Christian” part of Christianity. It would then be mere moralism, rather than an expression of the love of God and love for one’s neighbor. The Christian part of Christianity is repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

INC on October 20, 2006 at 2:37 PM

I understand that. The point here is that the OFBCI was supposed to leverage and support churches in their efforts to assist the poor and needy–IMO a big part of Christianity. The issue re repentance etc is clearly the underpinning to the Christian group of religions, but is not germane to the initiative, which one would hope would be open to working with all religions. Geez Leweeze.

honora on October 20, 2006 at 3:03 PM

Jailbones:

while the GOP isn’t perfect, at least it’s not actively hostile toward and intolerant of my faith.

AP
Nicely done, Allah (pbuh).

Uhh, that was written by Bryan in an update. And let me tell ya, nothing gets Bryan more steamed than praise directed to AP that should go to him.

It’s happened a couple of times in the past.

Bryan’s wrath was terrible to behold.

We will speak no more of such things…

EFG on October 20, 2006 at 3:10 PM

(I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer so bear with me).

honora on October 20, 2006 at 12:50 PM

However much you’re inclined to disagree with honora, never, ever believe that she’s not sharp.

Heh, honora, how’s this for a compliment from someone who often disagrees with you? Sincerely,

Entelechy on October 20, 2006 at 6:29 PM

I don’t know if anyone has brought this up yet, as I don’t have time to go through 127 posts (popular thread!). But if anyone listened to Rush today, he invited calls for the ‘cut and run’ republicans – the ones staying home. Now this may just be a ploy to encourage and excite all to go vote, but the offical number of ‘true’ cut and runs came to a total of two. In his summary, he stated that this was a story created by the media for the sake of the story (like we haven’t seen that before) in order to supress the republican vote.
I remember the last three or four elections where the media trully tried to supress the republican vote by playing thier jedi mind tricks on America for weeks from the election to vote night(Kerry was winning by a landslide by noon…don’t even try to vote, it doesn’t matter). It didn’t work. In fact, I believe this psychological voodoo they are trying is backfiring.
We hear the crap about us staying home and not voting, the polls are agaisnt us – you should just stay at home anyway, etc. But that crap makes us go ‘Whaaaaa?’ And therefore we go out and vote to proove them wrong.

Maybe its just me talking out of the side of my neck, but think about it. History does repeat itself. They MSM/Left/Dems are just becoming stronger in voicing the message that we despise and makes us go vote.

So, go out and vote

lsutiger on October 21, 2006 at 1:56 AM

I think Bryan hit it right on the head. While the Evangelicals are not very happy with the republican party we’re very aware that they’re also not going to ACLU AU and MOVEON us out of our right to express our views in a public forum.

We will continue to vote republican … until there’s a better option.

One Angry Christian on October 22, 2006 at 12:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.