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 ...
I find your first premise the easiest to believe but why would anyone with half a brain vote for any Democrat believing they would be more fiscally restrained. It would be total stupidity.
I do not want any of the front runners we have now but if one of them gets the nod (and I wouldn't bet they will) I'll vote for them against Hillary or Obama.
I think you're right.
Do you think Democrats are more honorable? They're far worse. Republicans don't hold a candle to RATs when it comes to the corruption and spending department. This rationale does not make sense.
Bush won Iowa in 2004 - with maxiumum turnout amongst the base and margin amongst evangelicals - by 10,000 votes.
Iowa could be an easy Dem flip in 2008.
how do you figure that? senators like Talent, Allen, and Santorum - were tossed in 2006. Were they "RINOs"? No, they were solid conservatives. they lost, because they didn't get enough independent votes. what it shows is that the conservative base cannot, on their own, elect anyone statewide in MO, PA, or VA. and they can't in FL either - need proof? Katherine Harris' 38% for senate, versus Bush's 52% (2004).
I find it hard to believe opinions can shift that dramatically.
I agree that it takes some independents to win , but if a portion of the base stays home we lose. If Rudy was the nominee, an even more significant portion of the base would sit it out and we would lose again .
Let me put it to you this way : the Independtents aren't the ones volunteering their time for campaigns . In '06 , I didn't see a fraction of the volunteers I normally see , our side was completely demoralized and we can plainly see the results .
I've learned my lesson. I'll never ever ever vote for a stinking RINO ever ever ever ever again.
I did for a weasel named Voinovich. I did for a bigger weasel named Taft. I did for an even bigger stinking rino in DeWine.
Notice the trend.
You can tell the Giuliiani crowd, the McLame crowd, the Romney crowd this boy is finished with RINOS and not a single one of them will get my vote.
Just once I would like to see anybody on this board name me 5 conservative senators with a spine and 20 conservative conresscritters with gonads. Milking a Black Angus Bull would be an easier task.
Better to bleed with one blow, than a thousand incremental cuts.
Waike Up Ameeerica....
that's the see-saw of coalition politics. nominate someone that independents don't know or who won't take to, and no matter what the base does, we lose. yes, the flip side is also true.
but in 2008 - we don't have the perfect candidate. Bush barely won in 2000 and 2004.
I don't think the loss of the two CD's in Iowa had anything to do with religious conservatives sitting it out. Kerry carried both by handsome margins, and Leach never appealed much to that group I suspect.
they sometimes just don't vote. I can't understand that mentality, esp. amongst Christians.
The whole Specter deal did not turn out well for Republicancs. And not to be picky or anything, but it wasn't ME blaming evangelicals or Christians; it was noted in the article. Just one of dozens of articles that have said the same thing. Did you READ the article?
When I Put "White Evangelicals", and "Iowa primary" into the ole memory bank, out comes.... James Earl Carter.
I get so sick of revisionist 2006 election history anyway. The GOP mainly lost because the President and GOP p*ssed off their base over ignoring the illegal immigration constituent outcry, the out of control spending and the Mark Foley/Duke Cunningham (& made-up Tom DeLay) corruption scandals. The GOP voter base was thoroughly disgusted and their non-action made voters think there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, not to mention the relentless media bias that routinely slammed the GOP.
That's it in a nutshell and the GOP made its bed and are suffering the consequences. I really think a conservative front runner will emerge, but they'll be far, far behind Hillary and will gain ground like a snowball rolling downhill because true conservatives would rather slit their wrists than see HRC as president.
I agree!
I know . We are in a most precarious situation . I've studied the politcal landscape and found Romney to be the best all around candidate . He got re-elected in a deep blue state as a Republican and appears to be the only one i've seen that can articulate Conservatism in a manner that anyone can understand and relate to . Very much like Reagan .
He has the machine in place along with tried and true Conservatives backing him ,which tells me that he will champion the Conservative cause as well as advance real solutions to real problems < Newt style .
I would ask everyone to give him a good look and at least wait until the debates before automatically ruling him out. He is a serious candidate that will emerge powerfully regardless of who else might happen to enter the race . Romney is the real deal and very much Presidential material (no baggage), as he is quite apt and able when it comes to debating and defeating Dims .
Romney will shred Hillary ...
Hiram , I feel your pain . I used to live in Ohio, and can't understand why or how the RINO's got so entrenched . It's time to restructure the Republican party there and put forth some true Conservatives.
Dim Strickland put forth the right message (as he is pro-gun),so was Blackwell, but Taft was anti-gun and I must say that it's no surprise given how bad Taft screwed up, that people were comfortable voting for Strickland . RINO DeWine
is antigun , the gunowners didn't even have a choice regarding a Senate vote, as both candidates were anti-gun Libs .
Ohio is the lynchpin , we need you folks to regroup for '08 or we might surely lose the big race .
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.