So what are evangelical voters up to this year? For a while now, we’ve been told that evangelical voters are up for grabs.
But Pew data hasn’t shown a shift of white evangelicals toward Democratic candidates. Comparing data from four and eight years ago, Obama is faring no better than Democratic nominees from years past. The most significant change is that evangelicals have been much less enthusiastic in their support for McCain than they were for Bush. Without the full support of that crucial voting block, McCain has been in trouble.
It will be several weeks before Pew comes out with its next poll — and I like to compare the same polls since they ask the same questions and use the same methodology — but there are other surveys that are newsworthy. This CBS poll shows a McCain gain of nine percentage points among white evangelicals in the last few days. Obama is apparently down to 18 percent.
So what is going on? Tmatt discussed a bit of this the other day. Peter Smith of the Louisville Courier-Journal had some interesting analysis after the latest Pew results.
Beliefnet’s Steve Waldman, writing in the Wall Street Journal, had some really interesting analysis about the issue. I’m not sure where he got the number, but he says that six million moderate evangelical votes were up for grabs. Folks who voted for Bush last time but were interested in Obama. He says those votes are slipping away, quoting one formerly pessimistic McCain supporter as saying that it was “game over” for Obama’s outreach efforts. Here’s why, according to Waldman:
1) His poor performance at the Saddleback candidates forum, especially (or perhaps entirely) his comment about it being “above my pay grade” to know when life begins.
2) John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, an appealing antiabortion figure and the perceived attacks on her by the media, which led evangelicals to think the “elites” were against them. This sentiment has been skillfully stoked by the Republicans.
3) The Democrats’ decision to run radio ads championing Sen. Obama’s abortion-rights position without discussing his abortion-reduction agenda. “Unless the Obama campaign will stop emphasizing abortion rights and strongly address the major common cause issues with a spirited vision and practical details, the Republicans can continue to scoop up a ton of votes,” says Hunter.
He also names Obama’s opposition to bills that would protect infants who survive abortions and concern about faith-based initiatives. Obama wouldn’t allow discrimination in hiring on the basis of religion, meaning church groups would have to hire outside their particular faith. It’s some great analysis and it would be great to see Waldman’s theory, based on his following of the Obamagelical phenomenon, is correct. Some reporting on these various explanations would be helpful.
The first three are all relatively recent events and while November isn’t too far away, there are many more twists and turns to cover in this race. I am sure that reporters who were so interested in the story when it was about evangelicals being up for grabs will continue to cover it now that the narrative has changed.
It is also worth noting that just because the numbers are slipping does not mean the main media narrative is worthless. Could it be possible, for instance, that Obama is gaining some young white evangelicals whose politics are changing? Could there numbers be making up other voters he’s losing for his staunch support of abortion rights? It’s just good to remember that constant numbers can successfully cover up some dramatic underlying stories.
 | Posted at 12:07 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (7) |
September 6, 2008, at 1:57 pm
I agree with that. The prior topic here went into detail about Hunter’s prayer at the Democratic convention sent a message that the commercials have undercut as Hunter said.
I think it’s important to keep in mind there are four questions:
1. What does Obama really believe?
2. What would he do as President?
3. What tactics is his campaign using to try to win?
4. What is the relationship between the first three questions?
I tend to discount #3 personally because any student of history will find vast gaps between campaign promises and actual performance for every President at least in the last century.
And we’ve seen in some cases that, as the stock prospectuses say, past performance is no indicator of the future. We had, for example, Nixon going to China. But we’ve also had Presidents who did not break the pattern of their prior behavior.
So, for example, do you support the anti-abortion of the John McCain of today or believe that he really still believes that he said in 1999 but is just tap dancing to get elected?
Do you believe the Obama who said that he feels strongly that abortion is a moral issue, the one who invited a pro-life Republican to offer a prayer at the convention and that the one that said the number must be reduced or do you believe the Obama portrayed in the commercials?
And are you really confident that you are basing your choice on the evidence or are you making assumptions based on emotional attachment to one side or the other?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2008, at 2:55 pm
2) John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, an appealing antiabortion figure and the perceived attacks on her by the media, which led evangelicals to think the “elites†were against them. This sentiment has been skillfully stoked by the Republicans.
AP Style Book be damned, if I die and my obituary says I was “anti-aborion,” I will hunt down that writer and haunt him. I prefer “pro-life,” thank you very much.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan ran on a pro-life platform. 28 years later the issue is still a hot topic with no real resolution in sight. The battle needs to be done in the grass roots, to counsel pregnant women and get them the help they need, whether they keep the baby or have it adopted. Unfortunately, those of faith who do these things don’t get much publicity for their efforts.
A prominent issue is that many voters really don’t know which candidate is best for leading the country. Neither has outlined any detailed plans or proposals. It’s almost as if the two were senators and wish to deliberate before sharing any details.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2008, at 6:00 pm
Here’s one other poll of white evangelicals to consider—done by Zogby after the Missouri and Tennessee primaries. Both Democrats and Republicans said they wanted a broader social agenda. And it showed an increase in the number of evangelicals who voted Democratic — up from one in four to one in three.
But, according to Zobgy, among evangelical Democrats, Hillary Clinton walloped Senator Obama.
Perhaps there are more Clinton-agelicals than Obama-gelicals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2008, at 6:39 pm
Waldman writes,
Actually, that’s not what Senator Obama said - if you look at the question and the response below, you will see that Rick Warren’s question looked to something else entirely - when is a baby entitled to human rights:
Sen. Obama, Harvard educated lawyer, knew exactly what Warren was asking and did his best to evade the question. However, it is not a question that can be evaded, if you want to be president.
Also, #2, I have no problem being labeled “anti-abortion” - I’m also “anti-slavery.” And, yes, I think both are part of being pro-life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2008, at 8:52 pm
I wonder how many people understand the questions during surveys that determine if someone is an Evangelical. The questions from Pew data link, More Americans Question Religion’s Role in PoliticsAug. 21, 2008:
http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/summer08/topline.pdf
I have struggled with the definition of evangelical. After reading several articles, I find the definition to very confusing and inconsistent. I have asked a few people whether they belonged to a mainline church or an evangelical church. They had never heard the term mainline. Some churches that are considered mainline say they are evangelical church.
Bob Smietana says referenced a Zobgy primary poll:
It is difficult to compare people that voted for Hillary and Obama in the primary. In Missouri, Obama made one speech in Kansas City and one speech in St. Louis before the Super Tuesday vote. Obama barely carried Missouri with wins in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas, and the counties where the University of Missouri is located.
Hillary had considerable name recognition. Bill Clinton was the last Democratic candidate that campaigned in the south part of Missouri, which is the area that voted more for Huckabee. The last poll from Missouri was before Obama’s visit to south Missouri.
What has hurt Obama the most has been the McCain’s false statements, “Barack Obama voted against a bill that would have protected infants born alive having survived an abortion attempt” that I detailed under Exploring Christian pews in the middle.
An interesting article at Beliefnet that is the reason some Christians that are against abortion will vote for a pro-choice candidate: Careful, Catholics, with that Palin vote
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/careful-catholics-with-that-pa.html
As a logical thinking person, I do not think abortion will ever be made illegal, especially since 60% of Americans think it should be legal and the Republicans have made no serious attempts to make abortion illegal.
As a Christian, I believe the Democrats’ stance on policies issues best match the rest of my Christian beliefs. The Republican stance on policies does not come close to my Christian beliefs based on the teachings of Jesus.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10, 2008, at 11:49 am
Obama is trying to distract the gullible by throwing around verbal pixie dust, regarding his newfound committment to “abortion reduction” and the like. But he has long been committed to policies that, if implemented, will surely significantly increase the number of abortions.
“Abortion reduction”? One policy that both sides agree actually has substantially reduced the number of abortions performed in the United States was the cutoff of Medicaid funding for abortion on demand. There are various empirical studies that demonstrate that many children have been born, who would otherwise have been aborted, because Medicaid funding of abortion has been denied by the federal Hyde Amendment, and by the comparable policies in effect in the majority of states. By the most conservative estimate, the federal Hyde Amendment alone has saved over one million lives since it was first enacted in 1976. Both sides agree that this has occurred — indeed, the pro-abortion side cites these studies in urging Congress and state legislatures to repeal these pro-life policies, while pro-life groups see this as a success story.
So, here is a proven “abortion reduction” policy, so is Obama for it? No, he is not — because all that “abortion-reduction” talk is just pixie dust to distract the gullible. Obama advocates repeal of the Hyde Amendment (and as a state senator, he voted against restricting state funding of elective abortions). Moreover, in 2007 Obama gave a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in which he promised abortion would be covered in his national health care plan, which means that everybody would be required to pay for elective abortion through taxes, mandatory premiums, or both.
Moreover, Obama is a cosponsor of the “Freedom of Choice Act” (S. 1173), which would make partial-birth abortion legal again, require tax-funded abortion on demand, and invalidate virtually all state and federal limits on abortion, including parental notification laws. This bill also provides that “A government may not … discriminate against” abortion “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” Does that sound like a policy that will result in “abortion reduction”? In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”
In the Illinois state Senate in 2001-2003, Obama successfully led the opposition to a bill to provide protection for babies who are born alive during abortions — and he has been making demonstrably false claims about the bill ever since, as National Right to Life shows in a thoroughly documented White Paper that we released on August 28, 2008, which can be read or downloaded here: http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
The bill that Obama killed was just three sentences long, and it was virtually identical to a federal bill that passed Congress in 2002 without a single dissenting vote. Obama’s vision of “abortion rights” is so expansive that he condemned as a violation of Roe v. Wade, language identical to that supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.
By all means, let’s have more scrutiny about these substantive policies positions.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
http://www.nrlc.org
Legfederal / at / aol.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 13, 2008, at 2:17 pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Everyone knows that the Democrat Party supports pro-choice policies, but it is wrong to make false or misleading statements to Senator Obama to influence the elections. If people want to make abortion illegal, they need to elect members of Congress that will support their position.
Mr. Johnson’s statement is false. He knows it is false because the NRLC input was considered at:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Mr. Johnson has been posting the same false statements on many websites.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php
August 20, 2008
What you need to know about the `Born Alive’ controversy and Barack Obama
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/bornalive.html
After Obama was no longer an Illinois state senator:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-abortion-obama_20aug20,0,1470841.story
The “Freedom of Choice Act†does not increase any provision of Roe v Wade, which included the protection of a viable fetus.
The purpose of “Freedom of Choice Act†(S. 1173) is to prevent the Supreme Court from removing portions of Roe v. Wade, including protecting the health of a woman.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1173
Like or Dislike:
0 
0