Posted on 02/22/2016 11:54:18 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Over at FiveThirtyEight, Farai Chideya takes a crack at analyzing Trump's strong showing with South Carolina's Evangelicals. He accurately notes that Evangelicals aren't necessarily voting on their faith:'
Trump's win among evangelicals was a bit of a surprise to the media - the cable networks hammered away at the issue, and on Sunday's "Meet the Press," Chuck Todd peppered Cruz with questions about why he lost the group that had supported him in Iowa. But the South Carolina results show evangelicals are a diverse group with sometimes differing priorities. Trump did well among less-conservative evangelicals but not among those who want a candidate who shares their values. And after all, two-thirds of South Carolina evangelicals voted for one of the other candidates instead.
"Diverse group with differing priorities" indeed. I'm glad to see Chideya note that Evangelicals - especially in the South - are hardly a monolith. Unlike the Northeast, West, and parts of the Midwest, in the South there is no social stigma to labeling yourself an Evangelical, and in some communities non-Evangelicals are in a decided minority. That's not to say, however, that the Evangelical movement here is culturally dominant. There is a significant gap between those who proudly declare themselves to be Christian and those who actually go to church or participate in church in any meaningful way. And amongst church-goers, there are wide variations in belief and approach. Denominations still matter down here.
At the risk of over-generalizing, I'd argue that the Trump/Cruz/Rubio divide exposes the fault lines in three main cultural threads of southern evangelicalism (the branch I know best).
Trump is drawing those voters who are Evangelical but don't see themselves as "Evangelical voters." In other words, they're not imposing faith-based litmus tests on candidates, they don't care about candidates' personal lives, they're less concerned with social issues, and they're more in line with old-school Southern populists. Oh, and they really, truly don't like being told what they "should" be doing and strongly dislike moral scolds - especially politically-correct moral scolds. Many of these voters were equally comfortable going for Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2000.
Cruz is pulling more from the voters who define themselves as true-blue (I'm sorry, true-red) Evangelicals and who are craving someone who shows that he has the courage to confront the establishment and the liberal media without compromising one inch on core principle. If you're talking to a voter who's concerned first and foremost not just with a candidate's faith but also with their moral and political consistency, then you're likely talking to a Cruz voter. If you're talking to someone who feels like the GOP has exploited Christians for votes, only to abandon the fight at the first sign of resistance, you're likely talking to a Cruz voter.
Rubio, by contrast, is getting his share of voters who look primarily to a candidate's faith, but he's also drawing substantial numbers from Evangelicals who care deeply about a candidate's manner. They want to see their candidate not just as a faithful Christian but as someone who can defend that faith in the public square in a particular way. They also tend to be more ambivalent about immigration - concerned about border enforcement, to be sure, but less closed to legalization. If you're talking to an Evangelical who believes that their candidate can break down walls and expand the Republican constituency, you're likely talking to a Rubio voter.
These differences are one reason why I'm a bit skeptical that the SEC primary will clarify whether Cruz or Rubio will emerge as Trump's principal competitor. The differences between the Evangelical constituencies are real - with Cruz voters proud of his alienation from Washington and Rubio voters troubled by his apparently divisive personality - and the numbers are substantial enough on both sides to keep both men in the hunt past March 1. Look for the three-man race to continue, in large part because southern Christians are just as divided as the rest of the GOP.
Marco Rubio's Catholic to LDS to Catholic journey really has nothing at all to connect him to an Evangelical label.
But then we've seen how the "Tea Party" grew, flourished and prospered before it was mimicked and maligned and eventually, when it no longer had anything left to exploit, it was thrown under the bus.
Evangelicalism is a “movement?” I thought it was just Christianity.
We pastafarians have these instead:
The Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts”
In the beginning
1.I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Act Like A Sanctimonious, Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If some people don’t believe in me, that’s okay. Really. I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn’t about them so don’t change the subject. OK?
2.I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I don’t require sacrifices and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3.I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, and get this in your thick heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey-Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we’re talking about fashion. Then, I’m sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4.I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is, “ Go f*** yourself,” Unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
5.I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then, go after the B******.
6.I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/ Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (take your pick) 1.Ending Poverty,
2.Curing Diseases,
3.Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable.
4.Creating large amounts of vigorously-pulsating sex machines.
â—¾I might be a complex-carbohydrate, omniscient being, But I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the Creator.
7.I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You’re not that interesting. Get over yourself. And, I told you to love your fellow man. Can’t you take a hint?
8.I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is into it, however (Pursuant To #4), then have at it. Take Pictures. But for the love of Mike, wear A CONDOM! Honestly, it’s a piece of rubber. If I didn’t want it to feel good when you did it, I would have added spikes or something.
RAmen.
Respectfully.....the folks I know just want their country back.
Evangelical is a pretty vague word that seems to have an ever shifting meaning according to all who use it and how they want to use it.
Let me guess - you’re a Freethinker.
I became an ordained Pastafarian minister so I could have fires in my back yard without the neighbors calling the cops on me every time they caught even the slightest whiff of smoke.
I told the cops it was a religious fire, and they told the neighbors there isn’t at thin they could do.
That’s about the size of it.
If the Evangelical support was solid for Cruz, you would speaking a different story.
The article makes good points about the “home worship” evangelicals vs. the ones that show up for service regularly.
I think sprinkled in here heavily are also a segment of evangelicals that were probably happy to throw in with Cruz, but after Iowa, don’t feel comfortable associating with a candidate who claims the mantle of “Christian representative in politics” and then jumped right into the mud when the voting started. Cruz captured a full 1/3 of the “dirtiest campaign” label in SC, second only to Trump. I think if Cruz’s campaign manager had committed to staying above-board, or he had fired or demoted him after IA, Cruz’s showing in SC would have been much, much better. Maybe even the 10 points or more needed to win.
I looked up the numbers, and Trump got 34% of Evangelicals while Cruz got 26% and Rubio got 21% and the others got 19%. So, 66% of Evangelicals DIDN’T vote for Trump.
Trump got the nod from Franklin Graham. To coin a phrase, It was Yuuugggge! Also, most of us realize we are all sinners. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
Gee, ya think?
That's what cracks me up about the "Evangelical vote". There's really no such thing.
I was disappointed in the “evangelicals” of South Carolina, but in a recent sermon Dr Jeffress stated that over 50% of “evangelicals” believe that there are many ways to get to Heaven! There is only ONE way, so a whole bunch of evangelicals are phony Christians. I think those were the ones voting for Robespierre Trump.
Christian's are routinely mocked and ridiculed in the MSM & Hollywood.
A President that says he's a Christian, when corrected, but acts just the opposite.
I don’t really agree with the Rubio supporter description. I think many are for open borders, not secure borders. I think they tend to be emotional, social gospel types. I also think they are fine with lies so long as it serves their “higher” goal of being “nice” to everyone.
Yet, such a long screed. You might want to check out Freethinkers - they're in everyone's face imposing their "non-religion" religion.
Cruz needs to dial back the Elmer Gantry act.
His speeches are a turn-off to anyone not currently part of this “true red” subset. (I just heard the audio and in my minds eye I could picture Jim and Tammy Faye).
Me too.
Evangelicals do not need some sort of God to run the nation!! They need a God to run their church!!! Trump WILL protect their religious rights and that is ALL they need!!! Evangelicals have also come to realize that abortion comes from ones heart not the government!!! Obama’s presidency has brought ALOT of us to realize just how bad things CAN be Trump may not be the perfect conservative but this country has turned to where a perfect conservative CAN NOT win!!!!! Reagan in many ways was not a PERFECT conservative !!!!
No it isn’t revealing any fault lines. The pollster’s identify evangelicals by their answers to questions. Those questions are by no means a valid way to ID evangelicals. Self-identification by pollsters is worse.
What they will discover if they reach out across evangelical lines is that evangelicals had at least as many different flavors as there were denominations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.