Replies

Evangelicals are our political allies and alienating them is a sure way to lose a national election.

And that's not just speaking hypothetically. Just ask Bob Dole. If there is a demise of the Republican Party, it will have been the price paid for alienating social conservatives by calling them "Bible thumpers" and worse.

What do you make of this, then? According to Barna Research, IIRC, it was *evangelicals* who went for *Bill Clinton* by about substantial percentage, thus giving him enough votes to squeak in. Twice.

I don’t consider a bloc vote for Bubba our “political allies,” do you?

I’ll try to find the link for that sooner rather than later.

There's lots out there; this is just what I came upon first.

[snip]

Bill Clinton in 1996 won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. But in 2000, George Bush won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. It shifted by about 10 percent away from Gore towards Bush, which, in an election that close, it was a very important shift.

from The Evangelical Vote: How monolithic is this voting bloc and how firm is its support for George W. Bush? Will religion matter in the 2004 election? Here are the views of Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals; Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet; Jim Wallis, editor-in chief of Sojourners Magazine; John C. Green, author of Religion and the Culture Wars; E.J. Dionne Jr., co-chair of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life; and Wayne Slater, reporter for the Dallas Morning News.

I realize people might say "well, we didn't mean *those* evangelicals . . .," but (again IIRC) it wasn't only the "freestyle" evangelicals who ended up voting for the Sinkmeister.

I do think the issue of whether "evangelicals" are the political allies of conservatives is quite complex.

Here's a flashback to 1994 that speaks to a bunch of points that are still in play:

Clinton's revelation - how and why Bill Clinton needs to appeal to Southern Baptists