More than 6 million self-described “evangelicals” voted for Obama

wordpress.com ^ | Joel Rosenberg

[Iam1ru1-2]

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:

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Whatever their reasons, these so-called evangelicals doomed Romney and a number of down-ballot candidates for the House and Senate.

This is what happens when the Church is weak and fails to disciple believers to turn Biblical faith into action. 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.

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.

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.

We need pastors registering voters in their churches and teaching the people in their congregations the importance of the civic duty of voting.

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.

[ansel12]

But realistically, arguing that abortion should be categorically banned under any circumstances isn’t going to win them elections.

We win lots of elections with that, this was one of the areas of weakness with Romney.

Not only does it save lives, but it is noble, and spiritual. It reflects positively on the party, that while arguing money and taxes, it also endures a beating from the media and popular culture for caring for something besides themselves, something that can't vote, and has no obvious economic benefit to anyone, no obvious benefit at all in a political sense, it reveals a caring love of children and even romantic love and a love of life, a deeper love at the core of the republican side, it reinforces the view of republicans as the dads and moms, and the newlyweds and the wholesome people, the caring lovers, the kind of people that everyone aspires to be.

Pro-life is the kind of thing that people come to accept when they get in touch with their better self, if they didn't start as pro-life already. We are winning that argument, and it is not only an argument that needs to be made, it is a fight that without it, then we are no longer worthy to exist.

You propose to become a democrat party II with better economics, frankly, you should be struggling to fight and win control within the democrat party, not the GOP.

Rather than think that you will erase God from American life, you should go the easier route of trying to convert the democrat party into a more economically conservative version of itself.

[Utmost Certainty]

“Anyone who has been here since ‘02 and claims they don’t know what the pro-life platform of the Republican Party is is lying and a troll.”

I wanted to know what being fervently pro-life means to -you-, not what the platform says.

[TigersEye]

For someone who ‘can’t get a bug deep enough up your rectum to make yourself interested in my lame commentary’ you sure can’t resist replying to me. You’re another troll who is here to stir up trouble and won’t engage in real debate. Your blanket accusations of racism against FReepers is disgusting and utterly baseless.

[TigersEye]

Sure, you obviously need some education on abortion. It's murder of a human being.

---------------------------------------------------

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

54,559,615

Total Abortions since 1973

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Less than 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today - 2006)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chosen Child

Studies Find Abortions Have Long-Term Effects

An Unexpected Correlation: The Legacy of Abortion

Study: Previous Abortions Linked With Pre-Term Birth and Cerebral Palsy

American Psychological Association Ignores Abortion-Depression Link

Study finds depression suffered by 80% of women who abort

Post-Abortion Counselor Confirms Abortions Cause Women Mental Health Issues

Abortion and Premature Birth Link Confirmed in New Study

Spanish Medical Expert: Damage to Women Caused by Abortion is Scientifically Proven

Science Catches Up with Religion Researchers prove fetuses have memories, know mothers’ voices..

Women Need More Mental Health Treatment After Abortion, New Study Finds

Teens Cope With Unwanted Pregnancies Better Than Abortions, Study Shows

New Study: Top Reason for Women's Abortions is No Supportive Partner, Father

New Study: Direct Link Between Abortion and Mental Health Problems

Researcher: Johns Hopkins Paper Biased on Abortion-Mental Health Issues

Abortion Linked to Higher Rates of Child Abuse, Study Finds

Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows

Recent Poll Reveals Most Americans Think Abortion Hurts Women

Planned Parenthood Misleads Women on Abortion's Mental Health Risks

Study: Abortions Cause Future Relationship Problems, More Domestic Violence

[TigersEye]

BTW, you have been challenging the GOP position on abortion regarding attracting voters so it is disingenuous of you to try to make it personal by claiming your interest now is my position. Classic trolling behavior.

[ansel12]

Your statement was "Now we all know what kind voted Obama."

My answer is--Yes, now we all know what kind voted Obama, people of color, the non-religious, the anti-Christian, all are solid, dependable, pro-Obama voting blocks.

Now we also know what kind voted Romney.
Who were the most pro-Romney voters in America? The Evangelicals, with 79%.

Yet you are raging about the most pro-Romney voters in America, how did your religious category vote?

[ravager]

Please don’t humor yourself. You are still a moron, and I still honestly don’t care for a “debate” with a douchebag like you. So how about we keep it civilized and both walk away? Does that work for you?

[TigersEye]

You obviously care a lot or you wouldn’t reply. You just aren’t smart enough to say anything substantive about the subject. All you have are your bigoted accusations of racism and your inane grade-school ad-hominems ala Pee Wee Herman. If you post stupidity you will get replies to it. Suck it up, cupcake.

[ravager]

“Yet you are raging about the most pro-Romney voters in America, how did your religious category vote? “

You tell me.

I don’t know about “the most pro-Romney voter” part. And I am quoting from what the article is saying.

[Utmost Certainty]

We win lots of elections with that, this was one of the areas of weakness with Romney.

Really? Because I heard Romney say quite clearly at the conclusion of either the 1st or 2nd debate, that he was absolutely 100% pro-life. Now of course, the politically informed among us would draw his MA governing record into question and likely dispute that… but most people don't vote on that basis because they're not that informed.

And no, I don't propose to turn the GOP into the Democratic Party w/ better economics. This is more of a philosophical distinction between individualism vs. collectivism, with the Democratic Party being thoroughly ensconced in the latter.

[ansel12]

Yeah, you don’t really have a clue about how things work, the more social liberalism there is, the larger and more intrusive, and expensive government becomes.

We have watched that for 60 years in our nation, social liberalism turned us into a tacky welfare state, with the people dependent, submissive, and living in socialism and our national community and commonality destroyed.

Reality is the opposite of your childish, fantasy.

[dfwgator]

Really? Because I heard Romney say quite clearly at the conclusion of either the 1st or 2nd debate, that he was absolutely 100% pro-life. Now of course, the politically informed among us would draw his MA governing record into question and likely dispute that… but most people don't vote on that basis because they're not that informed.

Obama devastatingly brought it up when he used the term "Romneysia" to describe Mitt's political history. That killed him.

[ansel12]

PRESUMPTIVE GOP PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE MITT ROMNEY DISCUSSES HIS POSITION ON ABORTION TONIGHT, ON THE “CBS EVENING NEWS WITH SCOTT PELLEY”

An excerpt will be broadcast tonight, August 27 on the CBS EVENING NEWS WITH SCOTT PELLEY (6:30-7:00 PM, ET) on the CBS Television Network.

PELLEY: Well, the platform as written at this convention for the Republicans does not allow for exceptions on abortion with regard to the health of the mother or rape or incest. Is that where you are?

ROMNEY: No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.

[ravager]

What’s your obsession with Pee Wee Herman seriously? lol You talk about him a lot.

[Utmost Certainty]

I asked so I can see some of the reasoning and attitudes behind the position.

[TigersEye]

Everyone knew Romney is flip-flopper. The MSM made sure that message was delivered. And it’s true!

[TigersEye]

I asked so I can see some of the reasoning and attitudes behind the position.

Right. Because after ten years on Free Republic you still don't have a clue. /s LOL Troll!

[fabian]

Catholic and “born again” voting for a pro abortion socialist?? They are not real Christians...only in name, not spirit.

[TigersEye]

What’s your obsession with Pee Wee Herman seriously? lol You talk about him a lot.

Your responses are tailored after him so closely it can't be missed.

Still nothing of substance from you. Trolling.

[Andrei Bulba]

Well I guess you only come out at night now.