Posted on 04/01/2007 10:48:20 AM PDT by FairOpinion
White evangelicals made up one-third of the electorate in Iowa in the 2004 presidential election, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks. Two-thirds of them voted for George W. Bush.
Nationally, evangelicals were 23 percent of the electorate in 2004 and they voted overwhelmingly for Bush.
Republicans suffered a dramatic setback in Iowa in the midterm elections with a Democrat winning the governor's office and Republicans losing two seats in Congress. In addition, both chambers of the state Legislature rolled to Democratic control, and Scheffler acknowledged that a main reason was that religious conservatives sat it out.
According to AP-Ipsos polling in March, white evangelical Christians look like Republicans generally in terms of their support for the current field of candidates. Giuliani leads McCain 37 percent to 18 percent among evangelical Republicans nationally. Support for all other candidates was in the single digits
. "I think they are looking at electability and they are looking at people who are fiscally and socially conservative," Popma said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
It looks like maybe, just maybe, most of them are coming down to reality, as evidenced by Giuliani leading in polls among evangelicals.
PS. The article also says 2/3 voted for Bush -- for whom did the other one third vote for, Kerry?! Maybe if they had all voted for Bush, the election wouldn't have been so close.
Let's hope that they help nominate an electable Republican candidate, who can and will beat Hillary, instead of doing a repeat of 2006, staying home and handing over full control of the US -- control of all three branches of the government -- to Hillary and the Democrats.
And as I've stated before, your factions insistence on nominating a liberal will only make matters worse in 08. Conservatives will not turn out for a liberal, and they will not be enthusiastic about getting out the vote for a liberal. In the end, the votes gained from having a liberal nominee will not make up for those lost from the Republican base.
It's you who haven't learned the lesson.
I vehemently hope you are wrong!
From out here in Iowa I sense no zeal for any candidate at this time. Still early. No one fits the bill, or has the whole package we conservatives would like to see.
We took a pounding at the state and federal level in 06 and many are genuinely in a funk. So far there are no white horses or white cowboy hats to lead the faithful.
Still waiting, wondering...
Sheffler, Popma, Roberts and Rants are four of the primary reasons for the failure of the Iowa GOP. They've had the whip hand for over a decade, and they squandered it through unprincipled compromise. Their opinions mean less than nothing to me.
My fervent hope is that conservatives have learned their lesson after 2006, when THEY HANDED control of Congress to the Democrats
It was mainly the moderates that jumped ship.
Is Iowa a strong union state ? I've always been under the impression that the unions have some clout out there .
This is a serious question; Does anybody know what the distinction is between white and black evangelicals?
Do black Pentecostals (these ar evangelicals, right) vote Dem?? Does pigment trump faith?
And will show up in droves to vote liberals into office? I don't think so.
Rudy is emblematic of the very reasons that many Republicans stayed home in '06 .
You keep pushing this crap like it's the gospel - you've been refuted a million times over.
But facts don't matter to you, that Republicans lost because of historical trends and the GOP abandoned fiscal conservatism.
Actually, it wasn't the evanglicals that sat out in 2004, it was Libertarians and independent conservatives who stayed home. The GOP overplayed their social conservative hand, and with the Foley scandal brewing, the other conservatives saw the hypocrisy and ditched the party.
The GOP has got to start paying attention to fiscal conservatism and limited government too.
Then again, if conservatives can do that, why not just vote for the democratic candidate?
By the way, is anyone at all troubled by the fact that Rudy has so many views and beliefs in common with Hillary Clinton and Obama?
The Iowa GOP lost the House and Senate because the gay lobby targeted some of the pro-family congressmen. Thier opponents received large sums of money from all over the country sent by the gay lobby. They are now getting thier payback from the Rat govenor Culver. Gay marriage is coming to Iowa.
And anyone who thinks that Republicans will cater, pander or rely on those religious conservatives had best have their heads examined. This will move a LOT of Republicans to the middle and they will leave their social conservatism at home.
I could never understand evangelical support for a pro-abort candidate whose personal life makes a mockery of the term 'family values'. Is it all about the WOT with them, is that what their vote has been reduced to?
You may just be right about this. One thing Guiliani or Thompson don't strike me as is a girly man. I disagree with you about a couple of the others you mention there, too, but not about your premise that many GOPers are simply ready to have someone say "don't tread on me" and really mean it.
Is "historical trends" the Newspeak term for "Iraq"?
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.