Hey Ned…are you smoking too much rock today? I posted on this yesterday…

Damn conservatives and their incessant crack smoking…

Loveyameanit…
Ginger

Those numbers up there are pretty interesting. I would imagine that if you put 1976’s numbers up there, they would say just the opposite. By the way, those people that fit that demographic have not changed much since then. They were and still are socially conservative and pretty liberal on fiscal issues. They are the basic definition of populist. I am speaking in general of course.

Also, it hasn’t just been that the GOP has pandered to religious people. Actually, the Democratic Party has kind of snubbed them. Beginning in 1972, the Democratic Party began losing these folks. The Democrats became extremely socially liberal and intolerant of anybody that wasn’t (too many Bill Mahers). The Dems never lost black evangelicals, but the white ones grew tired of being laughed at and made fun of. Reagan came along and they identified with him. That started what we have today.

In spite of the above trend, I truly believe that this group of voters is a natural constituency of the Democratic Party. Stop making fun of them, and these people are yours. It might take a while to get them back, but fiscally speaking, and in reality everything is about economics, these people should be Democrats.

They know you are christians.

Buy your vote. Buy your vote.

“Among evangelicals, though, 56% are registered Republicans and just 22% are Democrats.”

But this is a HUGE change from even 5 years ago. At one time, the number of evangelicals registered Republican was much higher. It shows that evangelicals are splintering away from the Republican Party and are self-identifying as independents now.

And it also shows that the media’s pre-written narrative, that all Christians are Republicans, is not just wrong, but getting increasingly further from reality. But they’ll never see it because they refuse to even ask Democrats what their religious affiliation is in exit polls. The MSM has already decided on religious demographics.

Hey Ned…are you smoking too much rock today? I posted on this yesterday…

I don’t mind getting two MCB links!

SB, don’t you agree though that the Dem party is partly to blame for losing these folks? I mean, there is a faction of the far left that doesn’t want these folks around. They scoff and make fun of them.

I posted on the first thread but I fall in line with the first quoted text.

I am a Christian and I already cast my vote for Hillary, but would take Obama if it came down to it.

It is time for a “change” (throw in overly used political word of the month) and I do not see another upper class, stuffed up/puffed up republican doing the job.

D’oh . . . my bad, Ginger . . . though my post has “added value,” doesn’t it?

meh, no harm/no foul, Ned…I just wanted to try and start the rumor that you are on crack.

SB, don’t you agree though that the Dem party is partly to blame for losing these folks? I mean, there is a faction of the far left that doesn’t want these folks around. They scoff and make fun of them.

Don’t be silly. You’re confusing people who passionately advocate for separation of church and state with people who are hostile to the conservative fundamentalism that keeps getting thrown in our faces as typical American Christianity.

I have never, ever felt “scoffed” or “made fun of” by the Left because I’m a Christian. Ever. That is a myth, started by conservatives and perpetuated by a clueless media that decides what the story is going to be in advance, and then goes looking for examples to support what it has already decided to be the story line.

I was just now watching CNN and who do they have on to give the “evangelical perspective” of Super Tuesday? David Brody of CBN — that’s Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, don’tcha know. Well, you can’t blame them, his card is right there in the Rolodex. But God forbid we should have someone from outside the inner circle to offer their perspective, you know, it might surprise some people.

No, it really ticks me off when I hear someone say “the Left mocks people of faith” because it’s just a lie and it’s insulting. The assumption is that there are no people of faith in the Left!

So Bill Maher doesn’t mock people of faith? He has a heck of an audience too.

So Bill Maher doesn’t mock people of faith? He has a heck of an audience too.

Well, first of all, Maher is a comedian with a TV show. He’s not “The Democratic Party.” You asked if I felt the Democratic Party was to blame, and I don’t.

Maher is an atheist. He mocks faith in general. He mocks hypocrites of faith like Larry Craig and Rick Santorum. I mock those people too. They deserve to be mocked.

But he’s had plenty of liberals on his show who are also people of faith and I’ve never seen him mock those people for their beliefs. He says he doesn’t understand it, but that’s his perogative. (sp?)

The abandonment of the GOP by evangelicals is just another symptom of the failure and hypocrisy of the Bush administration. What other cause is there? Perhaps cultural indoctrination by conservatives is playing less of a role, maybe young people have bettr access to media and are more in tune reality and are making their own judgements as opposed to believing what their parents do? May be they are just smarter than their parents? It is clear, the youth of America favors the Democratic party overwhelmingly, moreso than the 10% decrease in religiousity in the USA.

SB, your comment was immediately followed by one by a Democrat who has openly mocked all people of faith for some time.

You can argue that the religiously conservative are becoming less politically conservative (I think the two need to be untangled, myself), but what you cannot argue is that American Chritianity as a whole is getting more religiously liberal (not politically). The numbers do not bear that out.

By religiously liberal, I mean (using shorthand here) stressing social justice and downplaying sexual sin.

The mainline denominations are shrinking. The smaller churches, and megachurches - both of which take a more evangelical approach, are growing.

The history of the religious right’s migration toward the Republican party is a complicated one, and it’s been built one brick at a time. Starting with Democrat-supported judges ruling that prayer cannot be held in schools, to a series of rulings that seemed to be pushing any and all religious speech out of the public square, to Roe v Wade, to a popular culture in the 70’s and 80’s that did indeed mock the faithful (and those actors, directors and writers made no secret that they voted Democrat), to the fact that the most strident gay activists were Democrats.

I offer no opinions of the above issues, I’m just telling you why the migration occurred. My own father, lifelong southern Democrat, switched to the Republicans over the damn dirty hippies. (More shorthand). BTW, he has no party anymore.

It’s not as simple as you and Glen are portraying.

SB, your comment was immediately followed by one by a Democrat who has openly mocked all people of faith for some time.

If I may point out the miscommunication happening here. Glen is wanting to ask if any Democrats anywhere are to blame. Instead the question coming out is “is the Democratic Party to blame?”

If you look at Glen’s comment it’s clear. He answers his own question. First he asks “don’t you agree though that the Dem party is partly to blame for losing these folks?” but then immediately follows with “there is a faction of the far left that doesn’t want these folks around.” If it’s a small group of a small group of the Democratic party that doesn’t want them around, then no, “The Democratic Party” is not to blame. it’s similar to saying, “Don’t you think it’s the GOP’s fault that they don’t get many black votes? A faction of the far right wishes black folks were still slaves.”

SB, your comment was immediately followed by one by a Democrat who has openly mocked all people of faith for some time.

And yet, William has never mocked me personally for my faith (or any other reason that I’ve seen! If he has, I haven’t seen it!) Isn’t that interesting. I’ve never seen where William has said, “SB would be a whole lot smarter if it weren’t for her stupid attachment to her fairytale religion.”

I think dolphin has hit the nail on the head (as usual!) I do not, as a progressive Christian, feel unwelcome in the Democratic Party. There are millions of people in the party like me. We have news lists, meet-ups, churches, and house parties. We rally around our candidates. We know how to find each other online and in our communities. We are “out” and open and involved in our church life and in the political process. No one on the left has marginalized us. At least, that’s not how I feel.

is it possible that a group of vocal anti-religion politicos on the far left have alienated some potential Democrats who are people of faith? Eh. Maybe. I doubt it. I think anyone who says that “I’d be a Democrat if they weren’t so anti-religion” is probably not someone who’s that invested in Democratic principles anyway.

If you look at the history of institutions that perform “party purges” to remove offensive fringe ideologies, you find that it mostly does more harm than good. The purgers always misidentify where the center is and wind up driving away a lot of people who just didn’t like being told what party line to toe. Parties are approximations by their nature. If you want absolute accord, you’re a party of one and your table is waaaaayyyy back by the swinging kitchen door.

I’m going to agree with you SB, on this: the media pretending that any one person can give “the religious” take on an event or issue is goofy on its face. It’s like getting the “caucasian” take.

The closest thing we’ve ever had to a Protestant pope is Billy Graham, and even then, I can show you many,many Christians who made a point of saying that Billy Graham didn’t speak for them.

Billy Graham- lifelong Democrat by the way.

Billy Graham- lifelong Democrat by the way.

Yes indeed. But Billy Graham goes back to the day when political involvement by religious organizations was seen as bad for religion. I understand he’s always regretted his support for Richard Nixon and learned a valuable lesson about mixing religion and politics.

Speaking of:

Dobson: I Will Never Support McCain

With John McCain on the verge of winning the Republican nomination, the once-complacent anti-McCain forces on the right are getting louder than ever. This morning, James Dobson released a statement to Laura Ingraham’s radio show, declaring that under no circumstances would he support McCain in the general election — a potential blow to the Arizona senator, since it could discourage turnout among some evangelical voters.

SB, your comment was immediately followed by one by a Democrat who has openly mocked all people of faith for some time.

And yet, William has never mocked me personally for my faith (or any other reason that I’ve seen! If he has, I haven’t seen it!) Isn’t that interesting. I’ve never seen where William has said, “SB would be a whole lot smarter if it weren’t for her stupid attachment to her fairytale religion.”

Yeah; like your reference to Maher, William is selective in whom he attempts to malign.