Skip to main content

View Diary: Evangelicals and The GOP (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Evangelical religious right is more AGAINST Demos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mon, Subroutine

    than anything else so the "weakness" of Republican candidates is missing the point in many ways.

    The sources quoted in this diary focus on how religious right is unhappy with Bush but that is a different issue.  No one likes to be represented by an incompetent. Translating understandable dislike for Bush into a "splintering" is wishful thinking.

    We forget this group is driven by faith, not morality or logic.  They will will rally for the Republican candidate (even Giuliani) and more importantly against the Democratic candidate.

    At its core, the evangelical religious right is against things more than it is for things...it is against civil rights for women, minorities.  It is against science in schools.  It is against secular government.

    Romney's point that the religious right will rally to GOP is correct.  Republicans are working hard to satisfy the religious right base with all the red meat rhetoric.

    Even Rudy is promising religious right judges to eliminate women's rights and give religion more power in government.

    Republicans are telling the religious right everything it wants to hear about the "Christian nation" they will try and create.

    Romney is right that the evangelical right wing Republicans will rally to the eventual Republican candidate.

    Democrats should count in this and not on false hopes of "splintering" which is based more on dislike of Bush than any real change in religious right wing in US which is still a potent force for evil.

    •  distrust is fine (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pHunbalanced

      but don't let it blind you to what's happening.

      People can stay home without voting D.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:37:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Blindness" is in thinking right will not vote (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Subroutine

        The two analysis mentioned focus mostly on dislike of Bush.

        There is no splintering for the religious right on it's core values or it's leadership in agreeing on those core values.

        The right wing is based on being AGAINST science, secular government, civil rights and as such what gets it out to vote are liberal Democrats more than right wing Republicans.

        It is for that reason that the evangelical religious right, united in its beliefs will be out in force against Democratic candidate who will be a liberal and most likely the "devil incarnate", Hillary Clinton, a woman.  A core belief of evangelical right wing is in the subservient position of women and a woman running for president is heresy.

        They will be out in force.

        •  I think not (0+ / 0-)

          regionally maybe, not nationally. the drop-off started in 2006 and will continue in 2008.

          You are basing your opinion on your opinion, unless you have data to support it that I am unaware of (and please post if you do). I am basing my opinion on polling data and 2006 results, as well as repeated discussions from Kirkpatrick, Meacham and others who follow this.

          We are a reality-based community after all. I am astounded sometimes by our ability to ignore data in favor of 'what we believe'.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:58:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Facts of right wing voting suggest otherwise. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnfire, mon, Subroutine

            "I am astounded sometimes by our ability to ignore data in favor of 'what we believe'"

            The elections of Reagan, Bush and Bush should have disabused you of the ability to be "astounded" by the triumph of faith over reason.

            "We are a reality-based community after all."

            We clearly are not. Bush is in the White House.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is against women's rights, minority rights and secular government.

            The reason many fear a Clinton candidacy is because it provides a rallying point for the religious right because a woman running for president is such an anathema to evangelical doctrine.

            To hope the evangelical right wing sits out the election is a false hope.

            •  I don't think this is 2004; 2006 is more relevant (0+ / 0-)

              and that's the point. Conservative evangelicals will continue to be conservative evangelicals, but not everyone fits that rubric anymore. Here is the small drop-off seen in 2006, which is the discussion.

              According to the 2004 exit polls, 78% of this group voted for George W. Bush while 21% supported John F. Kerry. In 2006, the exit polls showed that 72% of this group voted for Republican congressional candidates and 27% for Democratic congressional candidates.

              The 21->27% is what we are talking about. Pick up another 6%? Not impossible. And also, have these voters stay home? Also not impossible, particularly if Rudy is the nominee. but to the point, that 27% should not be ignored under the false assumption that this voting bloc is monolithic. It isn't, and the unhappiness with current candidates just feeds into that, as well as the major points about the war and global warming eating into the vote.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:26:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why (0+ / 0-)
                do you use 2006 as the reference point rather than 2000 or 1996?  As I understand it, the dynamics of a presidential election are different than a non-pres election year.

                Not being snarky, here, I'm really interested.

                "...[one] must still have Chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star." Nietzsche

                by ATinNM on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:46:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  because things change over time (0+ / 0-)

                  and looking at 2004 misses what's changed. Also, the evangelical vote affects congress as much as the pres. elections. Finally, because each presidential election is so different, I don't think you can look at 2000 or 2004 and figure out what the heck it means for Rudy or McCain (two unloved figured by evangelicals).

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:07:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thank you for your response (0+ / 0-)
                    It's validating to know other people are aware of the limitations of Statistical Mechanics in a dynamic environment.  (A wee tad of Post-Modernist jibberish never hurts, eh?  ;-)

                    I agree the situation doesn't favor Rudy or McCain but the failure of Huckabee -- who should be their favorite son - to gain traction is puzzling.  This failure may very well be a bit of supporting evidence for the divorce of evangelicals and the GOP for future historians.  Or it could be Huckabee didn't do the necessary spadework within the evangelical movement required for a presidential campaign?

                    One really interesting fact is the downfall of the designated heir-apparent:  McCain.  Unusual for the Top/Down GOP we've become accustomed to, meaning the entire GOP coalition has fractured?    

                    Another is the GOP loss within their moderate wing, as well.

                    Putting all of this together, in the 2008 election the GOP could be facing dramatic losses of evangelical voters and simultaneously losing the moderate voters they pitched over the side to capture the evangelical vote.

                    This scenario - and please note the question marks - gives rise to the intriguing possibility of the GOP being reduced to, essentially, a regional party in 2008.  

                    One can only hope.

                    "...[one] must still have Chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star." Nietzsche

                    by ATinNM on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:10:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Huckabee looks to have traction in IA (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ATinNM

                      The data are sketchy and noisy, but he looks to be in a close race for second at this time. It is interesting why he hasn't gotten more money and support from leaders.

                      •  you can ask the same question about Dodd (0+ / 0-)

                        and progressives. Part of the answer is pure pragmatism, but with Huckabee, part of the answer is his poor record of fiscal conservatism.

                        IOW, Huckabee is great example of the fraying GOP coalition.

                        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:33:45 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  right, the Club for Growth hates him (0+ / 0-)

                          I suspect that's the most important thing, although lack of imagination can't be ruled out (with so many other candidates in the race). But I'm very curious to see what happens next, if he continues to look like a serious contender in Iowa.

                          Lack of imagination also contributes to Dodd's woes, although I don't know that Dodd has the native political skills to emerge in a crowded field.

                          •  at Yearly kos he was the most (0+ / 0-)

                            articulate of the crowd, and did best in the debate. I think his skills are fine.

                            His trouble is that he's been in DC forever, not his political skills. That, and that a small NE state like CT isn't sending a President to DC.

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:47:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  FWIW (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DemFromCT

                            And that, Tim, is the point I was trying to make to you at a moment ago here. We need to be understanding what powers exist in the institution of the Congress, those of us who serve there, and use that opportunity to do what the Constitution's given us. And that is to stop the funding.

                            http://www.cfr.org/...

                            Now, in late August 2007, I don't think it should take Dodd all those words to say "We in Congress can stop funding this war. We have the constitutional authority, and I believe we have the responsibility." Or whatever it was he wanted to say.

                            That's the sort of thing I wish he would clean up. But does it really have any bearing on his poll standing? Quite possibly not.

                          •  all Senators talk too much (0+ / 0-)

                            and he has Senate hair as well as Senate speech. Not optimal in a "change" election.

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 04:57:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  ah, another interesting point about Huckabee (0+ / 0-)
                        I hadn't read all of DemFromCT's links yet.

                        http://www.cbsnews.com/...

                        Among white evangelicals nationwide, only 15% said that Huckabee had "strong religious beliefs." 57% said that they didn't know (and I'm guessing that a bunch of the rest didn't really know either). See page 5.

    •  Amen. So to speak. (0+ / 0-)

      You're never gonna get evangelicals on the side of tolerance and progressive information.  Ever.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site