Dean in Reno says not to write off vote of evangelicals.

This is a longer version of an article previously posted. I have mixed feelings on this concentration on the religious community, but the way it is presented more fully makes sense.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6153



Do you see the difference in what he said and the headlines? I do. He is not saying to court them so much as not to disregard them.

Mized feelings on my part or not, fair is fair and some headlines are not.

if a politician is to be successful for a national office he has to shake a lot of hands and reach out to diverse groups.

That is what they have to do.

a uniter, not a divider <snark>

:yourock:

But don't compromise core principles in order to pander to them either.

But the article with 3 paragraphs does not include all that.

They are free to join us as we are - we will NOT compromise our principles...

and those in the Muslim American communities, African American communities, Hispanic communities, and all other Americans who are speaking out against the oppressive policies being implemented in Washington as well as state wide and even locally.

Bobby Kennedy was a great leader and candidate because he reached out to those who didn't have someone representing them, or those with the big checks to write but who needed individuals in power to speak out on their behalf.

Those are the ones who have been written off. Those are the ones who are consistently exploited and overlooked.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons Kennedy was assassinated. Our best leaders have acknowledged the realities that need facing and they have addressed the core of the wounds destroying our nation and our world. Our strength is only as great as our most vulnerable weakness. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link. When any one group is being attacked, demonized, marginalized, ignored, then everyone is vulnerable.

I believe the Democratic party has forgotten the groups that warrant the biggest ear. Those who have sacrificed their careers, their monetary success, their safety in order to do the right thing and oppose the policies of this Administration and the wars being perpetuated in the name of the War on Terror. In addition those who are being used and abused by the system and who have no voice in Washington are the ones the Democratic party needs to be reaching out to.

So I won't bother.

Huckabee to be the favorite of the right wing religious pigs.

best not to extend your reach beyond your grasp. Evangelicism does not embrace freedom or democracy.

when Obama was in Reno he attracted 2,000. I don't think we should write off anybody. Keep in mind, there are a lot of California transplants in Nevada, the state may be slowly turning blue.

Hey, since the Democrats are going to appeal to Christians, I guess I will leave...right?

So they cannot be ignored, however, most of them are NOT fundamentalists, nor do they even go to church on a regular basis. They go for weddings, funerals, a couple of holidays, and then basically don't think about it too much beyond that. Most of them aren't exactly comfortable with religious laden language from politicians. The question is, will trying to get the 6% or so of Evangelicals worth possibly alienating everybody else?

It would leave most of my fine family out if they didn't try. They are not bigots, they care about their faith.

I think your percentages might be skewed a little, but too tired to argue.

Tell Gov. Dean to leave the Christians alone then...I can't fret about it.

The most reliable group I can find is the Barna Group, who seem to define "Evangelical" quite narrowly, but they are a Christian group, and seem to just publish surveys with little editorial skewing. Could the amount of Evangelicals be higher? Yes it could, but exact numbers are hard to find. The most we can rely on are estimates.

Hell, we have the same problem in gaging actual religious practices in this country, almost half of Americans claim they attend church at least once a week, but actual church attendance rolls from churches themselves don't agree with these types of surveys. When heads are actually counted, only half of those who claimed to attend church regularly are telling the truth.

The same types of problems occur on religious identification surveys. People who belong to minority religions will lie about their actual religious affiliation, for fear of persecution. In addition, actual church records are notoriously unreliable because they don't take into account people who changed religion later in life. To give an example, to the Catholic Church, my family and I are still "Catholic" even though I'm a Wiccan, my Sister is a generic Goddess Worshiper, my mom is a Witch(NOT WICCAN), and my Dad is a non-practicing Catholic.

These problems aside, its hard to reach out to groups that aren't even that well defined to begin with. Also, approach matters, and social conservatives, of which most Evangelicals are, will not vote Democratic based on economic/charity issues alone.

Second, I do hope Dean realizes that Evangelicals are actually outnumbered by Atheists and Agnostics, only slightly, but its there. Add in folks of other religions that aren't Monotheistic and the numbers increase dramatically. I don't see the point of trying to appeal to the roughly 2/3rds of evangelicals who are loyal Republicans, we already have a third of them, isn't that enough? They are only 9% of the population, after all.

Not my policy.

I think Dean is doing the smart thing. Evangelicals vote. And their beliefs are more consistent with what our party used to believe in than what the GOP is about. Problem is that our party doesn't actually believe in much of anything at present, and most everyone knows it. Basically, everything is negotiable with the current Dem party leadership. Kinda hard to attract true believers in that environment.

That horde of clowns have been bred and brainwashed to vote for nothing but Repukes. They will NEVER go our way if we support a pro-choice and gay rights platform. There is no reaching 90% of them.

What good would getting their votes be if we have to sell our souls? Perform good deeds and good works and those with any brains will follow. The rest of them can go fuck themselves.

Too bad too many don't...

Sorry, I disagree.

Were talking about a horde of the most intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, uncompromising, black and white thinking voters there are. They don't see nuance, they only see things in terms of "good and evil".

How is the Democratic Party supposed to court people like this? Our party's platform is pro-choice. They see pro-choice as pro-murder and do not accept reasoning to the contrary. Our party supports gay rights. They see homosexuality as an abomination, and in many cases wish to see it outlawed. We are for tolerance of other cultures. They don't even recognize the separation of church and state.

These are the people that voted something like 87% for *. In the midst of war mongering and slandering of good people these "followers of Christ" marched in lock step straight to the polls. And even with a block that large in almost total support * barely won.

We don't need them. We are on the verge of making them irrelevant. If we build solid support in the Southwest, we can effectively tell the Evangelicals to fuck off. I, for one, will rejoice at the sound of their wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It just isn't.

They are an insulated community. They eat, sleep, think, and drink nothing but the group-think they are fed. They are fascists looking to push their will on others. Do you honestly think that a group that 87% of which voted for * are truly reachable? They're not. They look for the party that is willing let them push their ideology into government. Unless we are going to sell our souls and abandon what we stand for, that can't be us.

The sooner we make them irrelevant the sooner we turn the Republicans into a regional party, and the sooner real change happens for America.

Like I said in an earlier post, the only way we will be able to reach even the smallest percentage of them is by making the goodness of our party evident. Then, the ones that have a brain will change how they vote.

It is not fair. I have mixed feelings, but you just do not lump so many people together and call them fascints.

Until their leaders' rhetoric and actions change the title "fascists" fits.

Read American Theocracy, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, and you'll see what their real goals are.

Evangelicals are not even remotely monolithic -- the term "evangelical" is not even easily defined. While there is a sizeable group of people labeled "evangelical" who are profoundly conservative and disturbingly theocratic, they are a distinct minority of believers in the United States. A far larger group includes mainline protestant denominations and urban Catholics, who as a group tend to be far friendlier to liberal politics than their conservative brethren.

Bush and Kerry split mainline protestant voters in 2004, and despite significant differences on the subject of abortion, Bush edged Kerry only slightly among Catholics. Among evangelicals who describe themselves as "modernist," Kerry won just over half of their votes. Burrowing deeper into the numbers on the evangelicals, Kerry received more than a third of the votes of those who describe themselves and centrists and about 10% of those who describe themselves as conservative.

The opportunity that Dean is talking about here, and it's an opportunity worth siezing, is that those of the evangelical, mainline protestant, and Catholic faiths who describe themselves as "centrist" are a group ripe for the picking. These are people who have been bombarded for decades with a message that the Gospel of Jesus Christ boils down to abortion and gay marriage. If over the next few election cycles, we can raise the consciousness of these voters, to the point that their definition of "morality" includes caring for the sick and the poor, promoting peace, and caring for the environment, then we're going to peel a good number of these voters away from conservative politics.

I'm not saying that we should cozy up to the putrid vendors of the Christian Identify Movement and try to win their approval. I'm talking about the couple in Indiana who have this vague sense that maybe there's more their spiritual life than despising all the right people. If we can reach out to those voters, presenting a progressive agenda as a profoundly moral agenda (which it is), we create an opportunity to cripple conservative politics for the next generation.

Conservative and centrist believers (evangelicals and otherwise) are the ground troops of the Republican Party. If we get them to go AWOL, we win.

If we get one or two more Southwestern states, we win.

If we run on populism instead on "faith" those that are reachable will see that we are focused on the poor. Focusing on "faith" is exclusionary and can only work as long as wedge issues aren't seriously in play. As soon as abortion, stem cells, or gay marriage (and they are always on the horizon) rear their head again Evangelicals will run back to the Repukes because they are in line with their backward, dichotomous views.

As I said, if we can get people to expand their definition of morality, we're going to win over those centrist evangelical voters, and then we'll have a permanent majority. No doubt that the hard-core conservative evangelicals will continue to vote Republican, but they're not the ones we care about. THOSE we can write off.

And as I said in another thread, think of talking to evangelicals the same as you would talking to Latino voters. You're not changing the substance of your talking points when you translate them to Spanish, you're just making sure that your audience understands you. When we discuss progressives values in terms of their moral and religious dimensions, then we're going to change some minds.

or any of the lefty blogs.

:woohoo:

eom

best response to "the thread" at all.

Dean is good at finding common ground and doesn't do the whole "write off" thing. I trust Dean to know what he's doing after all the work and experience he's had in his life.

Maybe some of them are into the truth..who knows? Can't find out until you reach out and Dean believes in respecting people enough to ask for their vote.

:toast: to Dean! Fookin' Aye!

Personally, prayer is not an important part of my daily life. But for most of my friends it is. Most of them are also moderate in their politics and probably have not made up their mind about which party they will vote for in 2008.

On the other hand, I know some right wing fundamentalists as well and I would say that trying to get them to vote Democratic is like trying to get me to vote Republican. It's simply a waste of time.

Many Democrats are Evangelical and I hope we are
saying they are not welcome in our party.

Many Evangelicals (Mega Churches) avoid Politics
and Political Topics because their parishners are
both Dem and Republican.

Doctor Dean is correct and has been around the country
and understands the differences.
\
The Fundamentalists are committed Republicans for the
most part. 20% of Republican Party and from their
base.

Do we want to be as exclusive as the GOP?

to vote in their own best interest. Back in the 60's even Utah would elect at least one Real Democrat to Congress and occasionally even the Senate. Union membership from coal and copper mining, steel workers and construction was a serious political power that could override fundamentalist influence. Granted, the same argument could still be made today, but I wouldn't be able to make it with any sort of enthusiasm. (At least it could be said that workers would be marginally better off under Democratic governance) Too many in the Democratic leadership are willing to dump on labor and pander to corporate interests.

It should be obvious, this is about the only issue that could engender communality with evangelicals. And since Democrats only offer superficial support for labor, even this is likely to fail. There are just too many policies entrenched in the Democratic agenda that are antithetical to extremist Christians. But in deference to Dean, I'll save my rocks for corporate windows and spare the churches, at least for the time being.

The religious right as a movement did not exist back then. Candidates weren't asked about their faith and social issues did not exist. There was also no backlash against "big government" back then, which accounts for some of the Democrats' moving to the center on economic issues. Like it or not, Reagan convinced a whole lot of people that "welfare queens" and while that mentality isn't as prevalent today as it was in the 80's, it didn't exist in the 60's and 70's.

But as you say, back then conservative states would elect liberal Democrats to office. Frank Church from Idaho, Birch Bayh from Indiana, George McGovern from South Dakota, and Mike Gravel from Alaska (yes the same Mike Gravel running for President) all lost their Senate seats in 1980 and since then Democrats have never been able to reclaim these seats at all or elect anyone nearly as liberal as those who used to occupy those seats.