White Evangelicals are half of GOP primary voters

[astro]

Just as point of interest I knew they were a force, but I had no idea they constituted such a huge block of the GOP.

White Evangelicals are half of GOP primary voters

So far, 50 percent of Republican primary and caucus voters have been white evangelical, or born again, Christians, based on CBS News polling of voters entering or exiting their polling places since the first contest in January.

[Rhythmdvl]

Wasn’t there a similar thread a short while ago that turned to a discussion of what is/isn’t an ‘evangelical’? IIRC, the category of evangelical was much broader than popular conception.

[Jonathan_Chance]

That’s old data, though. I’d be interested to see how it turned out overall.

Still, even with a broad definition of ‘evangelical’ it’s still a headache for moderate candidates. Evangelicals tend to vote on social conservative issues and therefore either force candidates further right (a la poor Mitt) or produce more conservative candidates. And that’s clearly becoming a losing proposition, overall.

[RTFirefly]

@Jonathan_Chance

That’s old data, though. I’d be interested to see how it turned out overall.

It isn’t that old or incomplete, JC. The story’s dated March 15, and takes into account the data from primaries and caucuses in 15 states, roughly 1/3 of the total.

The data comes from entrance polls in two caucus states, Iowa and Nevada, and exit polls in 14 primary states - Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia.

By region: South - 7 states, Midwest - 3 states, Northeast - 3 states, and West - 2 states. So the South is overrepresented, which would tend to overstate the proportion of evangelicals, unless CBS adjusted for regional disparities.

Of course, the GOP itself is overrepresented in the South, which still is another country.

Still, even with a broad definition of ‘evangelical’ it’s still a headache for moderate candidates. Evangelicals tend to vote on social conservative issues and therefore either force candidates further right (a la poor Mitt) or produce more conservative candidates. And that’s clearly becoming a losing proposition, overall.

They seem to be tracking people who are self-identifying as evangelicals.

[Bridget_Burke]

“Evangelical” does not mean “fundamentalist.” I’m quite sure many of the white Evangelicals are politically conservative–but not all of them. Evangelical Jim Wallis is head of Sojourners–& has been Jon Stewart’s guest. They got along fine.

There’s even a recentCatholic contributor:

The way the U.S. Catholic bishops behaved in the election this fall suggests that very little has changed. For months last year, the bishops—in what the* National Catholic Reporter* (NCR) referred to as “self-indulgent tantrums”—attacked the Obama administration with exaggerated, if not completely scurrilous charges, accusing the president of a “war on religion” and strongly, if indirectly, endorsing the Republican Party. In the last few weeks before the election, several bishops went so far as to threaten their parishioners with eternal damnation—one bishop exhorted his flock that “to vote for someone in favor of [the Democratic Party’s] positions … could put your own soul in jeopardy.”

But Catholics didn’t listen. In a pre-election survey, 83 percent of Catholic voters said they felt no obligation to vote the way bishops recommended, and in the voting booth a majority supported Obama over Romney. The future of the U.S. church—Latino Catholics—rejected the bishops’ “advice” even more dramatically: More than three-quarters voted for Obama.

One important principle that many—perhaps especially the bishops themselves—seem to have forgotten: The institution is not the church. As the NCR editorial board wrote, “The bishops clearly need to rethink their political alliance with the Republican Party and their emphasis on making abortion and gay marriage illegal as the principal marks of Catholic identity”—positions that have “further compromised the already seriously damaged moral authority of the church’s leadership in this country.”

[BrainGlutton]

@RTFirefly

They seem to be tracking people who are self-identifying as evangelicals.

The tough part is getting the transmitter-collar around the neck before the tranquilizer-dart wears off.

[Buck_Godot]

The number that is clearly missing from this is what proportion of the overall population in the states surveyed that claim to be white evangelical. Until we know this number it’s hard to interpret the results.

[RTFirefly]

@Bridget_Burke

“Evangelical” does not mean “fundamentalist.”

Close enough, these days. Fundamentalism boils down to a belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible, and the proportion of people who characterize themselves as evangelicals who don’t believe in Biblical inerrancy is quite small. You can be an evangelical without being a fundamentalist, and vice versa, but the differences are not substantial.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

Close enough, these days. Fundamentalism boils down to a belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible, and the proportion of people who characterize themselves as evangelicals who don’t believe in Biblical inerrancy is quite small. You can be an evangelical without being a fundamentalist, and vice versa, but the differences are not substantial.

Would you consider 23% to be “not substantial”?

Link.

White evangelicals (77 percent)… are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.

The other options in the survey were:

• Humans evolved, God guided the process

• Humans evolved, God did not guide process

I think we can say that those 23% are not “fundamentalists” when it comes to the story of Adam and Eve and evolution.

Also, note that the link in the OP says “evangelicals or born again”. This thread title is misleading.

[RTFirefly]

@John_Mace

Would you consider 23% to be “not substantial”?

Link.

The other options in the survey were:

• Humans evolved, God guided the process

• Humans evolved, God did not guide process

• Not sure, no opinion, refused to answer

I think we can say that those 23% are not “fundamentalists” when it comes to the story of Adam and Eve and evolution.

No, we can’t. For one thing, your 23% isn’t solid, for another, a nontrivial minority consider God-guided evolution to be consistent with the story of Genesis and therefore consider themselves inerrantists while taking that position. And for a third, without seeing the actual poll questions, how do we know your poll doesn’t suffer from the error you mention below?

Also, note that the link in the OP says “evangelicals or born again”. This thread title is misleading.

[BigT]

What I need to know is what other types of Christian were offered. Most Protestant Christians are “born again,” which is a synonym for “saved.” To me, “born again Christian” means the same thing as “Other - Christian.”

On the other hand, the fact that they are Republican makes me think they are against homosexuality and abortion. Nothing else in the Republican platform really lines up with the usual Christian beliefs, really. Unless maybe if you count the prosperity gospel–but all of them are against abortion and homosexuality, too.

[Lobohan]

@Bridget_Burke

“Evangelical” does not mean “fundamentalist.” I’m quite sure many of the white Evangelicals are politically conservative–but not all of them. Evangelical Jim Wallis is head of Sojourners–& has been Jon Stewart’s guest. They got along fine.

There are liberal Evangelicals, I’m sure. But the thread is about the Evangelicals that vote in Republican primaries. So they are going to be the crazy-people version.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

• Not sure, no opinion, refused to answer No, we can’t.

Well, since the total adds up to 96%, that is, at most, 4%. Change my 23% to 19% if you wish.

For one thing, your 23% isn’t solid, for another, a nontrivial minority consider God-guided evolution to be consistent with the story of Genesis and therefore consider themselves inerrantists while taking that position. And for a third, without seeing the actual poll questions, how do we know your poll doesn’t suffer from the error you mention below?

OK. Please present the evidence that backs up your statement.