The Next Open Thread: Evangelical Edition

by DemFromCT

New polls from ABC/WaPo (weird internals, with more R than D voters) and TIME have some interesting landscape findings. The TIME poll is most interesting for the evangelical content.

Another challenge facing the GOP is a stark dropoff in support among what is usually a core constituency: white evangelical Christians. According to TIME's poll, only 54% of people in this group favor Republican candidates, with 5% undecided. Thirty-eight percent of white evangelicals polled say they'll support Democrats. In 2004, exit polls indicated that 78% of this constituency voted for Bush. While the GOP won out in the poll by seven points (42-35) as the party perceived as best equipped to protect moral values, a matter especially important to this group, the party's standing among evangelicals may have been hurt by recent Congressional scandals, which have tarnished the GOP especially. Forty one percent of registered voters said Congressional scandals were extremely or very important as voting issues this campaign.

Amy Sullivan made the point on the Chris Matthews show that the evangelical vote is fixed already, but the Haggard incident has repercussions for 2008. They are more likely to go for purity (Brownback) than pragmatism.

Your thoughts? And here's a recent Pew poll for discussion.

Comments

[Crab Nebula]

A retreat to purity or a disengagment altogether? Or a breakdown of evangelical preference in the current '08 field? I'd like to poll these.

[drt]

evangelical preference does not consider disengagement or a retreat to 'purity.'

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

if you just don't want to answer the question, tell me and I won't ask.

"You gave me the answers to my question on CT,

but NOT on:

US Senate
US House
Washington, 8th"

Please instruct this small grasshopper, oh mighty Poll Master.

:)

[DemFromCT]

Who wins?

US Senate Dems take 5, 50-50, Joe gets to be a prick.

US House Dems take >25

WA-08 tough one; it's trending R but just. Too close to call, but my guess is R.

[William Ockham]

If you want to understand the connection between the Republican party and the cultural reactionaries (White Protestant Evangelicals is simply a convenient stand-in group, mostly coterminous for demographic reasons), you have to understand that the key to the entire strategy was demonizing gays.

Effective demogoguery requires an "other". In the beginning, the Nixonian Southern strategy used "tough on crime" as a stand in for hating blacks. As that became less effective, the cynical hatemongers cast around for a new villian. So, gay became the new black, so to speak. For all the talk of "defending marriage", this is really about haters and the cynics who take advantage of them.

The cultural reactionaries are stilling willing to purge the gays among them (see Haggard, Ted). Will the Republican party do the same? I'm not talking about Foley. I'm talking about the ones who are still actively participating in Republican politics. Somebody should ask Ken Mehlman about that.

[Carol]

Many states (mine included) had constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage on the ballot which energized the fundies to get out and vote for this one item in 2004. Many of these people do not regularly get out to vote for individuals running for office and probably couldn't pick their current senators' faces out of a line-up. There are only a few states in this election year that will have gay marriage bans on their ballots so I don't believe the fundie turnout will be as large as 2004 nationwide. Sadly, here in Missouri we have a controversial 'stem cell inituitive' amendment to vote for in this election and that has fired up the fundies to defeat this measure which could also affect Claire McCaskill's attempt to unseat Talent in the Senate. This has been a close race all year and the outcome will depend on voter turnout.

[freepatriot]

from the NY Times:

Youngsters were sent out of the room before elders began speaking about the church crisis.

send the children out of the room while you discuss the lying hypocrite

that ought to make an impact on a few young people

I'm thinking we got some liberals in the making here

[Mimikatz]

Jodi: Note my prediction in the thread above that WA-08 goes narrowly for Burner. The polls are close, but I think the times favor the challengers this year and McGavick is doing so poorly it might have an effect.

[Jodi]

Thanks DemFromCT,

it must be exciting for you.

:)

I think we can put the brakes on Mr Bush.

I don't know what the best thing for Iraq is. Mom and I have been holding on to each other a lot.

:(

Thank you too, Mimikatz.

[texas dem]

Now, Brownback has gone Catholic. Is that a problem for the evangelicals? Alito and Roberts are both Catholic, so maybe not.

On the other hand, Gov Mike Huckabee was an evangelical preacher. The kind who got a special "covenant marriage." Apparently Club for Growth hates him, but it seems like he ought to be able to put most of the pieces of the GOP coalition together. If Romney can't make the sale in Iowa, I can't see anyone else to McCain's right other than Huckabee.

[smiley]

Another challenge facing the GOP is a stark dropoff in support among what is usually a core constituency: white evangelical Christians. According to TIME's poll, only 54% of people in this group favor Republican candidates, with 5% undecided. Thirty-eight percent of white evangelicals polled say they'll support Democrats.

I think that openly expressing belief in the ultimate supremacy of the invisible sky-monster should disqualify one from exercising the right to vote.

Seriously. We as a society should place evangelicals on the same moral ground that we place convicted felons who plead insanity- maybe we don't lock them up in prison, but we don't allow them to vote or interact with children, and we sure don't let them be involved in deciding questions of social policy. Chris Matthews would never say, "John McCain's appearance today at Bob Jones University garnered great support for the Republican Party from the important serial-murder/rapist constituency..."

Their actions and opinions are rooted in irrational beliefs and are are therefore invalid as a basis for rational policy choices. You can't build a solid house on a rotten foundation. Their ideas don't deserve consideration, much less public discussion. Period. End of story.

[vwcat]

I agree with the writer who posted that the evangelicals always need an other and so do the republicans. It's always about personal. Hate and fear. Right now the target is gays which is a conveinent stand in for black and usually rotate with the perennial favorite: democrats.
They stuff I hear of the faithful who talk about what they really believe about Democrats you'd think we had horns and were satin. They believe the gays are trying to abolish the families, take the kids and turn them all gay. It is really hard to fathom that in 2006 and all the information available that people are that gullible. They really do believe the boogyman stories. With all thier hearts. It's the ignorance we need to fight the hardest and longest in order to heal the divide.