Talk Elections

What do you think?

Yes, so why don't they go for it then!

No doubt

Well, one might believe that the Democrats would win anyway (and a result of, say, 51D-45R-4E would lend itself to the belief that the evangelicals did not cost the Republicans the election).

I voted yes, but Verily's point is valid.

i think with Rudy there is a chance of this, but as has been stated it does not mean that they cost the election

I mean, we know that they are out there. There is at least 1 fundy on this site that refuses to vote for anything left of W on civil rights even if they would be shot if they didn't. I would say 5% of the entire electorate....possibly 7 or 8 percent. This will be devasting where the GOP's vote is concentrated on hard-core antiabortionists, like the eastern river valleys and and would be especially devasting in states like Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico where the GOP is far-right but the rest of the population isn't.  With someone like Guiliani, the GOP can expect to lose 5% of the party to apathy or the Constitution Party, another 2 or 3 to the dems (especially minorities), but could gain back some of those points from the dems if they show that neo-conservatism and supply-side economics is working.

I should've thought that evengelicals were about 1/3 of the GOP vote.  And the other 2/3 are mostly fairly religious too.

You're looking at this entirely the wrong way.

What if the evangelicals realize 2008 is a lost cause and the Republicans will lose anyway, would they than go for a third party to make a political point to the GOP brass?

Gee... if that were so....



I would say it would go 50 Clinton/Richardson (they will win, but will they dispell the myth that a majority of the country wouldn't vote the dem ticket under any circumstance)-31 Guliani/Romney-14 Huckabee/Keyes- 4 Nader/Bandarak

()

Even though it seems likely that the Democrats would win this scenario, an evangelical third party would not play a part in costing the Republicans the White House, however Electoral College votes, primarily in the Deep South.

Definitely.

Hy!

I'm french, so sorry if my engish is not perfect.

I follow from my country for a couple of years the evangelicals movements arround the world and especially in the USA, I thinck they can progress through the populations all over the world and they are also in my small french city of the south west of France (7 evangelicals churches, 1 traditionnal protestant and 8 traditionnal catholic churches, for 45.000 peoples).

I came on this forum to ask questions about them on the US elections and precisely on the question of this topic: can the evangelicals make a third party? In my question i mean a third party as the democrates party or the republicans one.

So i would have several more precise questions:

Have some evangelicals politicians tried to create a third party? If they did, does that work?

Are evangelicals politicians some pastors?

Do the evangelicals churches try to federate them? If they do, does that work?

What is the place of the evangelicals in the US mass medias as CBS, ABC or NBC? How do we speack about them on these mass medias?

Lot of thancks for all the ones who can give some of these informations to me.

Hi and welcome.


Third parties generally do not work in this country. I'm a third-party advocate myself, but it's a bit quixotic. There are numerous third parties to the right of the Republicans. However, the only one to concern yourself and has any semblance of relevance are the Constitution Party. In 2004, they ran a second-tier candidate in Maryland lawyer Michael Peroutka and got 144,000 votes to take 5th place (0.12%). There are some elected Constitution Party members across the country. The highest profile is a state legislator in Montana named Rick Jore. There are various mayors across the country.


Yes. They tend to be Republicans. One Republican candidate for President this time is Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister. Various pastors over time have ran for political office, although it is more common in the black community via the Democratic Party.

There are of course ministers that belong to the Constitution Party, because they reject the Republican Party as being too liberal and not actively pursuing a Christian-based state.


Not sure I understand this question.


Depends who you ask and their opinion. They are certainly treated with respect as there is a large number of Americans that fall under the label "evangelical", and as mass media are dependent on ratings and advertising revenue, they don't want to make anyone mad.

Thancks a lot state boiler to answer my questions.

First i would like to precise that i'm not for the evangelicals. I just try to get informations about them cause i thinck they can have a very important place arround the world in the years to come.

When i asked if they tried to federate their churches, i wanted to know if, as there is a lot of different evangelical churches, they try to group them in a sort of federation of churches or in a sort of a big only evangelical movement with a only name, with a boss, with a strategy on a large scale and all the things that can do a big organization and not some different smalls.

I would also like to know if there is some debates in US mass medias on the separation of the Church and the State. If there are, does it take a large place, or a larger and larger place?

What i thinck from what i can see from my country is that the evangelicals will be deserved in 2008 but if the movement continue to spread in the population, i thinck they can come back stronger for the presidency elections to follow. What do you thinck about it?

Thanck you

Hmmm... There are actually a few federations of evangelical/fundamentalist churches. There are the National Association of Evangelicals, the Christian Coalition (though they are being replaced). There are some evangelist think tanks, such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family as well. Also, there are several evangelical law schools- There is Regent Law School, Liberty Law School and Ave Maria Law School for fundamentalist catholics. So yes, there are some federated churches, think tanks and schools that make up the evangelical movement.

The evangelical movement may or may not become a bigger force. The one reason for this is because of the splintering of more non-ideological evangelicals. For example, there are some that are anti-abortion, like all the others, but are also pro-Kyoto, pro-Medicare and a few younger members are pro-gay. So, the evangelical movement may lose its ability to be a unified single force, though they may play a role in their respective pet issues.

Thanck you for your answers Goa Tse.

I heard speacking about the "Christian coalition", isn't its strategy more international?
I also knew for schools, the one i knew is the "Patrick Henry college" did you hear about it?
And i'm not surprised at all that they have thinck tanks.

When you tell me that you don't thinck that the evangelical can go bigger cause they are splinting there ideology and they are becoming more open minded, i thinck it is the only way for them to can have a future. I thinck that if they want to survive, they have to be more pragmatic with the world. My thinck is that they will concentrate them on some traditionnal values plus maybe the creationism and almost they will put the maximum on the proselythism and still above on the charismatic way of life that make that peoples who have troubles in their life and in their mind will can sing and scream at church and then feel better. I thinck that is that can work in the US and it works also all arround the world. I thinck they are enough intelligent to feel it and to do in consequence, especially the baptists and the pentecotists who are thancks to me the ones on who we have to keep an eye.

What do you thinck about it?

If Ron Paul ran as a 3rd party candidates would he cost the GOP the election? that would be the best revenge if they try to keep him out by moving up the registration deadlines.

I dunno, maybe. They will probably catch flack and isolate themselves if they continue to stay the anus of the GOP, CDs, Cons and what have you.

Absolutely - but this would only happen if Giuliani (maybe Paul) got the nomination.

Sorry for my unknowledge but GOP? (republican party?) CDs? (christian democrats?) Cons? (conservators?)

GOP stands for "Grand Old Party" which refers to the Republicans because they won so many presidential elections from the American Civil War until the Great Depression in 1932.

I'm not sure what he meant with CD.

Cons. is short for conservatives, which refers to the ideology and not a particular party.

Thanck you Snowguy 716

I would have still a few more questions to ask to peoples living in USA about the evangelicals:

Have evangelicals a, or several, TV channel(s) that cover all the USA? If yes, has it, or have they, a good audience? Same question for national radio(s) or press.

Are there some debates in the country on a Christian-based state for USA? If yes, are these debates in mass medias (TVs, radios, press)? If they are, have they a large place? a small one? a lager? a smaller?

Have evangelicals big websites? which ones?

As this forum is before destined to speack on 2008 presidency elections and as i don't want to be out of subject, if someone knows a forum more destinited to speack about evangelicals, the adress will be welcome.

Finally, questions that are more on the 2008 elections:

What's the position of Hillary Clinton about evangelicals?

Have most of the democrats her position?

Is there a common position of the democrats about evangelicals?

I know, there is a lot of questions but i have a lot of interogations, so thancks a lot to all the ones that can give me some of these informations.

Thancks fezzyfestoon

All the information that permit me to better understand how USA work and how evangelicals work in USA are precious to me.

Actually, Evangelicals went


78-21 in 2004, counting as 23% of the vote

70-28 in 2006, counting as 24% of the vote.

  So, they are becoming larger, but more diluted.  The House election in 2006 went 52-44 and the presidency went 48-51. That's a 6 point swing. However, evangelical whites swung by 8, meaning the they are 2% more unreliable than before. That's about a .5% swing from GOP to DEM and if the trend continues and realistically slows, that will be about .75% swinging, if the evangelicals go 33-66 next election. Though it will probably be more like 70-28 if Romney or Thomson gets it or 40-59 if Guiliani gets it.

Thancks Goa Tse

I think i understood most of what you said but i think i need precisions:

First, when you put .5%, means 0.5%?

Then, when you put numbers like these: "78-21", "70-28", "52-44", "48-51" and else, is it the percent of repartition of evangelical vote between GOP and dems? So that making 78% of evangelicals voting for GOP and 21% voting for dems in 2004? and so that making 40% of evangelical vote for GOP and 59% for dems if Giuliani gets the nomination???

Other question, from what i can see from France, i think that Giuliani is the best positioned to get the nomination and i think it's the only one to be able to win versus a Hillary Clinton. What do you think about it?

Last point, you tell me evangelical are went and even if they are bigger they are more diluted, we allready spoke about that, but as i think that in the years to come they will reorganize them, finding new ways of efficient progression, i think we must keep an eye on them. Actually i heard about the fact that the megachurches become more and more numerous in USA (meagachurches present in USA were about 650 in 2000 and 1210 in 2005, according to a specialist) and that each of them takes more and more importance in each community regrouping different activities and creating paid-jobs, is that something you can see? The question is for you or anyone else living in USA.

there will be no major third party in this election, because conservatives are too clever to split their vote.
B.N.

What could be interesting is Ron Paul as a super-Libertarian.  And if Colbert runs as an indy or some new party.

Here's a prediction where this situation could come true - see my comment:

https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2008/pred.php?action=indpred&id=1519

Colbert won't run for real (he's currently running as a joke) because spending over $5,000 while keeping his TV show would violate a whole slew of FEC rules and bankrupt comedy central. Doritos would probably get in trouble too.

Yes, a Christian Right third party candidate would seriously endanger the chances of the GOP nominee winning in 2008. The Democratic nominee could carry states not carried since LBJ's landslide in 1964 or Carter's near sweep of the South in 1976

Dave

NC would never vote for a third party

If that's Clinton vs. Giulliani, won't the evangelicals creat, as third party, the party of the... abstention?

It's possible that they might, but third parties rarely get much support.

If a large majority of evangelicals go for abstention, will it cost the GOP 2008?

If they lose cause of that, it seems to me that there are two possibilities for the future:

-GOP reorganizes itself to be more... Democrat

-GOP reorganizes itself to be more... evangelical

So, one of the key question for the future seems to be: what will become evangelicals in the years to come?

Anyway, actually something seems to be sure, it is that, if there is not a big event that shakes a lot of things, for the 2008 elections USA want to go far from G.W. Bush, am I wrong?

You're absolutely correct. Bush is highly unpopular.

()
This a map of Hillary Clinton getting 49% of the vote, Rudy Giuliani getting 38% of the vote, and  Mike Huckabee getting 12% of the vote
Mike Huckabee in gets almost all of his percentage points from the South, Intermountain West and some parts of the Midwest.

Not as much as people think it will.  It will free Rudy to be himself, which will win over alot of votes from the center and center-left... plus the Paul supporters will (with abit of reluctance) see Rudy as their man, without question.  Personally, I will be happy to be rid of that 10% of the population.  Granted, the RR bailing will mean less umph behind some fo the issues I care about, but most of that is only agreement on the surface anyway, and the Devil is in the details.  Clearly, it has gone beyond the point where these people are simply protecting their way of life, they would enfore their will upon everyone, this much is certain, and those kind of people are driving millions away from the Republican Party.

I totally agree with that. They (evangelicals) are neither Republican nor Democrat nor others, they are "born again", they don't search to convice only by ideas but also by a sort of charismatic power. They try to do it in USA but also in any country of the world, and it works in a lot of. I think we should keep an eye on them, cause when peoples begin to lose the reason, to stop to think in the way to only obey to God and especially to the men that pretend representing Him on earth, we should begin to be worried about it.

Isn't there more or less 50% of americans who believe in creationism?

Considering that Paul and Giuliani don't agree on...well anything, why would this be the case?

I agree with the vast consensus on this question.  It would absolutely cost the Republicans 2008.  Lets face it, the religious right is a huge, probably a good 40-50% (and I'm probably being conservative) of the Republican base.  If the vast majority of the r.r. goes third party, it will guarantee the Democrats the White House.

However, I see them staying with the GOP, because they know by voting third party, that it would be in effect a vote cast in favor of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.  I think the religious right would rather have a Republican in the White House at all costs when compared to the current Democratic field.

()

Clinton/Richardson: 48% PV, 378 EV
Giuliani/Romney: 30% PV, 113 EV
Huckabee/Musgrave: 21% PV, 47 EV

Of course, that could change, or the Evangelicals won't run a third party at all.  I also think they could do a lot better than this, or be a total non-factor.

The % who say they believe in creationism depends greatly on how the question is phrased, because a very large % of americans will say they are in favor of anything with "christian" "biblical" or "jesus" in the title. In general, Americans (outside the deep south at least) like the idea of fundamentalist christianity a lot more than they like it in practice. For example, large numbers of Americans tell pollsters that they think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in schools, but whenever a school board tries to implement creationism, they usually get booted out of office.

No, it could make the Dems EV count larger, (by pushing more upper south states in their column) but the Dems are winning neext year regardless if the Evangelicals go third party or not.

Not so fast, my friend.  I hope the Democrats win, but the Republicans can take the White House.  In fact, I'm kind of predicting a Giuliani administration, but I am not at all confident on that.  Clinton can easily win, but so can Giuliani.

Plus, I wouldn't tell anyone from Iowa or New Hampshire that this election is already over. :P

No matter who wins in 2008, save for Clinton, will be defeated in 2012.  Clinton is the only one in this crop in both parties that can be re-elected.

Why do you hope a dem win when a GOP win would mean you could have a regime which would push your kind of social views on us?

Because I'm a socially moderately-conservative, and economically liberal, Democrat.  Plus, as much as I like the guy, Bush and the Republicans have messed us up royally.  Not to mention, none of the Republican candidates would advance a radically conservative agenda.  Also, I want this war to end.  The Democrats are the only ones who will even attempt to do such a thing.

You'd fit better in the GOP. You'd be a dem in 1970 and I'd be a republican then so why not swap parties? You'd feel better.

Actually another Clinton adminstration would probably wake up the far right from their slumber. I would pick her as the Democrat most likely to her re-election fight.

Thancks strangeland

If I don't put doubts in your word when you tell me that americans in general like the idea of fundamentalist christianity more than they like it in practice, we maybe could agree to say that it is at least a positive ground for these proselytist movements that are evangelicals. Like I said in my last message, the most worrying thing to me is that peoples in general go more and more in the irrational, all over the world, and from what I can see USA seem to be far to be an exception, even France, "country of the reason", of "les Lumières", with an history deeply anti-religion since our 1789 revolution and deeply rationalist. Evangelicals profit a lot of it and use more and more of it and it works. Like I said, when peoples begin to lose reason and stop thinking, I find it worrying, especially in a democracy.

Now to me the question is: will the evangelicals continue in this way gaining more and more peoples, and one day majorities of peoples? I think it could be a possibility in more or less long-term for lot of places in the world and also for USA which are important cause the most powerfull country.

Actually the most probable to me is that evangelicals will be far diseverd in 2008, and it could make 3 or 4 years to reorganize them and come back stronger.

More of that, it could be 3 or 4 years during the ones lot of things could change in the world and international troubles could happen. I think that if USA choose a president in retreat on the international scene in 2008, and if important international troubles happen, USA could want to choose a very interventionist president on the international scene in 2012.

G.W. Bush wanted to impose freedom in the world, will an american president one day try to impose Jesus in the way to make the comunion of all peoples of the world with God? Anyway that's the big project of evangelicals.