Posted on 11/08/2012 3:41:20 PM PST by Anti-Hillary
Why & what else do the exit polls tell us about how Christians voted?
[CORRECTED VERSION: In the first version of this column, I incorrectly reported a figure of 25 million evangelicals voting for Obama in 2012. The actual number, as now noted below, is about 6.4 million. Please forgive my error.]
As the smoke clears from the wreckage of the Romney defeat on Tuesday, some intriguing yet disturbing facts are coming to light.
* Fewer people overall voted in 2012 (about 117 million) compared to 2008 (about 125 million).
* President Obama received some 6.6 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008 (60,217,329 in 2012 votes compared to 66,882,230 votes in 2008).
* One would think that such a dynamic would have helped Romney win — clearly it did not.
* Incredibly, Governor Romney received nearly 1 million fewer votes in 2012 than Sen. John McCain received in 2008. (In 2008, McCain won 58,343,671 votes. In 2012, Romney won only 57,486,044 votes.)
Why? How was it possible for Romney to do worse than McCain? It will take some time to sift through all of the data. But here is some of what we know from the 2012 election day exit polls:
The President received a whopping 71% of the Hispanic vote (which was 10% of the total votes cast), compared to only 27% for Romney (McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008). Obama also won 56% of the moderate vote, which was interesting given that Romney (who got 41%) was widely perceived by the GOP base as being a “Massachusetts moderate.” The President lost married women (getting only 46% of their vote to Romney’s 53%). But won decisively among unmarried women (67% to Romney’s 31%).
That said, what I’m looking at most closely is the Christian vote, and here is where I see trouble: •42% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from 45% in 2008. •57% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from 54% that McCain won in 2008. •When you zoom in a bit, you find that 21% of self-identified, white, born-again, evangelical Christians voted for President Obama in 2012. •You’d think this decrease in evangelical votes for Obama would have helped win the race for Romney, but it didn’t. •78% of evangelical Christians voted for Romney in 2012. Yes, this was up from the 74% that McCain received in 2008, but it wasn’t nearly enough. •To put it more precisely, about 5 million fewer evangelicals voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Meanwhile, some 4.7 million more evangelicals voted for Romney than voted for McCain. Yet Romney still couldn’t win. •Meanwhile, 50% of the Catholic vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from the 54% that Obama won in 2008. •48% of the Catholic vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from the 45% that McCain won in 2008. Yet it still wasn’t enough.
Now consider this additional data: •In 2008, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls. •In 2012, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls. •In other words, we saw no change at all in the size of the evangelical vote, –no net gain, certainly no surge, no record evangelical turnout, despite expectations of this. •Of the 117 million people who voted on Tuesday, therefore, about 30 million (26%) were evangelicals. Of this, 21% — or about 6.4 million evangelicals — voted for Obama. •By comparison, of the 125 million people who voted in 2008, 32.5 million (26%) were evangelicals. At the time, Obama won 24% of evangelicals, or about 7.8 million people. •What’s more, in 2008, 27% of the total vote for president was Catholic, according to the exit polls. •In 2012, only 25% of the total vote for president was Catholic. •Remarkably, this means that Romney got a higher percentage of the Catholic vote than McCain, but millions of fewer Catholics actually voted in 2012, despite having Rep. Paul Ryan, a practicing Catholic, on the ticket.
What does all this mean? A few observations: 1.During the GOP primaries in 2012, it was reported that there was record turnout by evangelical voters — they were fired up and mobilized then (though largely behind Sen. Rick Santorum.)
2.There were concerns by a number of Christian leaders going into the 2012 elections that Romney’s Mormonism might suppress evangelical and conservative voter turnout. 3.The Romney campaign worked hard to not only to win the evangelical vote but to turn out more evangelicals to the polls — but it did not work.
4.Despite Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-religious freedom record — a record presumably abhorrent both to evangelicals and conservative Catholics — Romney simply was not able to cut deeply enough into Obama’s evangelical and Catholic vote.
5.If Romney had been able win over significantly more evangelicals – and/or dramatically increased evangelical turnout in the right states – he would have won the election handily.
6.It is stunning to think that more than 6 million self-described evangelical Christians would vote for a President who supports abortion on demand; supported the same-sex marriage ballot initiatives that successed in Maryland, Maine and Washington; and was on the cover of Newsweek as America’s “first gay president.” Did these self-professed believers surrender their Biblical convictions in the voting booth, or did they never really have deep Biblical convictions on the critical issues to begin with?
7.Whatever their reasons, these so-called evangelicals doomed Romney and a number of down-ballot candidates for the House and Senate.
8.This is what happens when the Church is weak and fails to disciple believers to turn Biblical faith into action.
9.Given the enormous number of evangelical Christians in the U.S., this bloc could still affect enormous positive change for their issues if they were to unify and vote for the pro-life, pro-marriage candidate as a bloc.
10.What will it take to educate, register and mobilize Christians to vote on the basis of Biblical principles, and what kind of candidates could best mobilize them? This is a critical question that Christian political leaders as well as pastors must serious consider. As we have seen, just a few million more evangelicals voting for pro-life, pro-marriage candidates could offset other demographics that are becoming more liberal.
11.That said, we need national candidates who take values issues as seriously as economic and fiscal issues, and have strong credentials on these values issues, and can talk about these issues in a winsome, compassionate, effective manner.
12.We need pastors registering voters in their churches and teaching the people in their congregations the importance of the civic duty of voting.
13.None of this should come, however, at the expense of pastors and other Christian leaders clearly, boldly and unequivocally teaching and preaching the Word, proclaiming the Gospel, and making disciples, and helping believers learn to live out their faith in a real and practical way in their communities, including being “salt” and “light” to preserve what is good in society. What we need most in America isn’t a political revival but a sweeping series of spiritual revivals — a Third Great Awakening. As men and women’s hearts are transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they will, in time, vote for the values they are internalizing from the Bible. As I wrote about in Implosion, if we don’t see a Third Great Awakening soon, I’m not convinced we will be able to turn this dear nation around in time.
Wot? I'm not trying to make a point, I'm wanting clarification. Are they considering those that belong to Black Liberation Theology churches as Evangelicals?
Why do you *bet* I'm not an Evangelical?
BTW, the term Evangelical 500 years ago in France meant PROTESTANT, and it still does. If you want to say Pentecostal, say Pentecostal or Holy Roller. There are also black Catholics. They voted for Obama.
Just the way it is ~ he's still "historic", and my guess is he'll be the last black candidate of a major political party who runs for President for over a century.
He really screwed up. They're voting for him out of a sense of solidarity. It's a mistake and Jesus will dispatch them all to Hell, but they did it.
that includes blacks you damn fools here
average Catholic here thinks anyone who isn’t Roman is an Evangelical
idiots
Do you know what Black Liberation Theology is? It doesn’t belong in the Evangelical category.
3 million in Texas voted for Obama so that’s probably half right there.
What are you trying to prove? This is nothing new, as there are always tares among the wheat, and while the 21% who voted liberal is grievous - and consider that it aparently included blacks and Latino evangelicals (you forgot to even give a source: http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx) - and you are attacking the most conservative Christian group there is.
Take a look here: http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html
Some RCs are eager to blame the 21% of evangelicals who voted like 50% of Catholics.
Who is our Republican leadership?
The brand that's got the most adherents is smaller than the Nation of Islam anyway.
AME, Baptists, Methodists ~ if black ~ or part of Jimmy Carter's division of the Baptist movement, have Evangelicals who voted for Obama.
Groups like the Primitive Baptist, probably didn't vote ~ and that's true for the ones who are black or white. They don't particularly care about Mormons ~ they just don't vote.
>even 22% of gays & lesbians voted for Bush in one of the elections...2004<
And Pew states that “Romney received as much support from evangelical voters as George W. Bush did in 2004. (79%) and more support from evangelicals than McCain did in 2008 (73%). Mormon voters were also firmly in Romney’s corner; nearly eight-in-ten Mormons (78%) voted for Romney, while 21% voted for Obama. Romney received about the same amount of support from Mormons that Bush received in 2004.
57% of Protestants overall voted for Romney, while 42% supported Obama. Catholics as a whole were evenly divided in 2012 (50% voted for Obama, while 48% backed Romney) - http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx
By attacking evangelicals it seems almost like someone is attempting damage control for another religious group.
What is your definition of 'Evangelical'?
I am not sure that I believe the vote totals we are being asked to accept. I see too much evidence of too much fraud to believe ANYTHING we are being told about this election.
Just because people call themselves Christians does not mean they are Bible believing, Christ’s shed blood on the Cross at Calvary, burial and resurrection from the dead, and sitting at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. Many so called Christians still think they can work and earn their way into Heaven. Wrong! Paul makes that clear. However, cults preach a different gospel, and Paul also says anyone preaching another gospel will be accursed. When they say 80% or something like that call themselves Christians, that usually means people say, “well, I am not a Jew, I am not a Muslin, I am not a Buddist, etc.” Thus, I must be a Christian. Or, they came from a Christian family. Grandpaw, Grandmom, dad or mom were a Christian. So, I am. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Check out 1 Cor 15: 1-4 for the gospel of grace. Only by acceptance of Jesus Christ, and He made it clear that the only way was through Him. So, this, calling themselves Christians, does not actually mean they are Christians.
My question was/is...are they combining the BLT church votes in with the Evangelical vote count? I'm just curious if they did, as some BLT churches pass themselves off as Christian churches.
Who are they? Not one of the big ones fur shur.
BTW, you are worried about the splinter in your brother's eye and you have a log in your own. That log is made up of the 60 million Catholics, non believers, moslems, Jews, Buddhists, and others who voted for Obama.
Kvetch about the whole bunch, not just Conservatives who you think might have not voted for your boy.
NOTE FOR RECORD: people who imagine something like the LivePrayer Church dot com are meaningful religious bodies with gazillions of members probably don't get out much. There's no excuse for that.
Remember, the crowd telling the pollsters they were Evangelicals who voted for Obama were likely to be Democrats and they lie. Always assume Democrats always lie when it comes to politics.
You are making yourself excited about something that simply cannot be known from the data ~ even Rev. Wright's church is part of the Church of Christ (puritan) crowd ~ an ancient Protestant movement, yet he teaches BLT. We know it's BLT because we've heard his tapes and we know where those concepts come from. They didn't change their church name though.
Goodnight, Gracie!
rofl,
I hope you read the title of the story ~ right there ‘SELF DESCRIBED EVANGELICALS’ ~ which means ‘NO ONE KNOWS IF THERE”S ANY TRUTH TO THE CLAIM’
Clear eyes. Nighty nite.
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.